Re: Queries and OO
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov (mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de)
Date: 01/16/05
- Next message: Daniel Parker: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Previous message: Robert C. Martin: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- In reply to: frebe: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Next in thread: frebe: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Reply: frebe: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Reply: Daniel Parker: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:59:59 +0100
On 16 Jan 2005 07:28:23 -0800, frebe wrote:
> Robert C. Martin wrote:
>>>After some debates at this forum I have made the conclusion that the
>>>concepts of queries does not exists within OO.
>>
>> True. OO is a set of tools and techniques for managing source code
>> dependencies. It has nothing to do with databases.
I line with Robert here.
> I didn't say anything about databases. I asked about the querying
> objects.
I'd say that querying is rather about some specific implementation than
modeling. This kind if implementation forces you to have a very flat type
hierarchy with a limited set of available operations. It might be OK for
some applications and absolutely unsuitable for others. Of course it does
not mean that a query language cannot be complete (in Turing sense etc),
just it is a very low-level abstraction as compared with OO approach.
>> The safest way to think about this is to separate the concept of OO
>> and DB completely. OO has nothing to do with databases, and databases
>> have nothing to do with OO.
>
> Isn't queries something you may need even if you don't use a database?
I might need no queries even if I do use a database. For example, all
queries could be locked in low-level implementation package used for
interfacing DB. The rest might be completely unaware of them.
>> When you see the word "object" used in
>> reference to database like things (e.g. OQL, OODB) it does not refer
>> to the same "object" when you see it used in reference to programming
>> like things (e.g. OOP, OOD, inheritance, polymorphism).
>
> But classes/objects can be used to model almost anything in the "real
> world". And if databases exists in the "real world", it must be
> possible to describe them as a structure of objects, or?
Probably yes, but it would be rather uninteresting objects. What could be
so intriguing in a set of tables?
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
- Next message: Daniel Parker: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Previous message: Robert C. Martin: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- In reply to: frebe: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Next in thread: frebe: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Reply: frebe: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Reply: Daniel Parker: "Re: Queries and OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|