in reply to Re: OO concepts and relational databases
in thread OO concepts and relational databases

There are two reasons why I didn't address OODBMSes:
  1. MySQL, Oracle, SQLite, and PostgreSQL are all RDBMSes. As those are the most popular options mentioned here, I chose to discuss them. I actually haven't seen much, if any, discussion of OODBMSes on this (or any other) site I go to.
  2. I've never used one, so I don't have any experience to discuss them. I have, however, a lot of experience with Oracle and MySQL in a number of companies. :-)

You may be perfectly correct in your assertion of OODBMSes. I don't know. I'd certainly be interested in learning more, though ...

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested

  • Comment on Re^2: OO concepts and relational databases

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: OO concepts and relational databases
by dfaure (Chaplain) on Aug 02, 2004 at 19:41 UTC
    There are two reasons why I didn't address OODBMSes

    And you're perfectly right. For now OODBMSes are still more than ever small exotic things compared to mastodontic RDBMSes (commercial rules applies...).

    In fact, I always found RDBMSes complex and difficult stuff, even a bit archaic (the gap from sequential-indexed files is not so wide).

    Here's some interesting reference about OODBMSes:

    ____
    HTH, Dominique
    My two favorites:
    If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail. --Abraham Maslow
    Bien faire, et le faire savoir...

[reply]

In Section Meditations