Re: Mixing OO and DB

David Cressey wrote:

> Given that so many people want an OODBMS, why has one not been built?
> I think it's because the term OODBMS contains a contradiction in terms.
> But I'm open to other opinions.

Unfortunately the ones holding those other opinions appearantly aren't open to yours - yet?

When I first heard about OODBMS I thought: when will those marketing guys ever stop mixing up terms they don't understand? Objects /behave/. Data /is/. So I hoped that the 'OODBMS' vendors's designers would discover that to come even just a little closer to their marketing idiots claims they would have to device a common type system (CTS, common to the DB columns and the application structs).

Objects behave. When the context of the running program has gone, all objects have died / they have stopped behaving / ceased to be objects. In order to reincarnate them at a later point in time, the application must make sure all data, needed for the rebirth, are stored somewhere /outside/ the object system before the program stops running. That is /outside/ the part of the system where thinking in objects (a.k.a. Object Orientation, OO) makes any sense. Without thinking outside the object box you cannot make objects capable of reviving.

--
What you see depends on where you stand.