Re: OO versus RDB

David Barrett-Lennard a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

(snip)

You have a rather amusing nature! Honestly your posts entertain me!

I'm learning that you lock onto individual words or phrases within a
sentence, take its meaning very literally,

What should I do with what you say ? Interpreting it has any other word taken at random in a dictionnary ? Are you trying to express something about computers and OO programming, or is this just some experiment in surrealistic writing ?

and don't allow context to
get in the way. For you "X provides a means for storing your data"
means one thing and one thing only : X is the thing that writes the
bytes to secondary storage.

What else do you want to express ? main memory storage ? It boils down to the same thing : bunches of bytes, mostly managed by the underlying OS, with a language (not paradigm) specific layer above. Don't see any major difference here. And still nothing relating to OO (or RM or whatever).

The idea that X be "A way of thinking" or
"paradigm" doesn't occur to you even though that was the sentence you
were given.

Please read more carefully.

Furthermore, you seem to assume "store" always means persist on
secondary storage. Note that it is quite conventional to say "store in
memory".

Bingo - main memory storage. Already adressed above.

I'm also trying to work out your assumptions on what "data" means to
you.

Just like the distinction between technical and domain objects, this is a moving target. But to put it short: what's getting executed is code, what's being processed is data. In both cases, this really is only bits in a computer...

(snip)

It is common for image processing applications to need to store data.

And ? Please explain the fundamental difference between writing data to
a file from a procedural language, an OO language or a functional
language ? Will the binary file be different ? Strange enough, when I
write a text file from a Python program, I have no difficulty reading it
from a strictly procedural C program.


Let me describe a scenario that helps to illustrate what I'm saying and
my choice of terminology.

In C we can *store* data structures in memory (let's just call it
"data").

Stop here. 'Data structure' == 'data' ?

Let's rephrase this :
"In C, we can allocate memory blocks and put some (more or less) structured data in it."

This uses the simple types like float as well as user defined
structs. Members can be embedded by value or referenced by pointer.
Arrays can also be used.

Are you going to teach me C and/or CS101 ?

Now let's suppose we want to store a CAD
drawing, and we decide we need an inhomogeneous group of graphics
elements. Now this is C, not C++ so we can't just define an abstract
base class and use polymorphism. Instead, we heap allocate each
graphic element (because they vary in size) and store an array of
pointers to them. Each element stores its type, so when we iterate
through them we can switch on type in our procedural code. Let's
suppose we use the composite pattern to allow arbitrary nested
grouping. Suppose this CAD drawing needs to persist. We choose to
write procedural code that recursively serialises all the data to/from
a given file.

And ?

What do we call this methodology for "storing our data"?

file storage.

Whether the code used to write/read this is (more or less) procedural, (more or less) OO or (more or less) functional is still irrelevant.

I don't refer
to the procedure that merely serialises the data to disk. Remember
that the word "store" doesn't imply persistence - for example as when
one says "the data is stored in memory". For you, a clearer way to
ask the intended question is then : What do we call this methodology
for representing our data?

A data structure. And I wouldn't call that a 'methodology'.

Have another question ?

The fact that the code was written in C not C++ doesn't seem important

At least something sensible. Now s/C/Pascal/ and s/C++/Lisp/, then s/Pascal/OCaml/ and s/Lisp/Perl, and you'll find it still isn't very important. Wether you build it from nested lists, linked structs or objects, a tree by any other name is a tree.

- particularly given the graphic element abstraction. I personally
don't mind calling it "OO",

Then you're confusing OO with structured datatypes. OO is usually implemented with structured datatypes, OO can be used to model structured datatypes, but OO - as a paradigm - is about objects and messages. FWIW, using classes is not enough - nor is even required - to do OO.

particularly in the context of making a
comparison to the relational paradigm for representing the CAD drawing.

FWIW, the relational algebra is somewhat bad when it comes to heterogenous hierarchical structures, and AFAICT, CAD tools use a lot of such structures - which may be a reason why RDBMS never really made it in this domain. Just like markup languages are usually a better choice for loosely structured documents.

I hope this example illustrates my choice of terminology.

Alas.

(snip)
I would definately store a terra-byte
multi-res image in an OODBMS rather than an RDBMS.

I would definitively store it on the filesystem.


I have stored multi-gigabyte multi-res images in an OODBMS and it works
very nicely.

1/ Did I say it wouldn't work ?
2/ Where do you think your OODBMS stored the data anyway ? On a clay
tablet ?

I didn't even express disagreement in your preference to use a file
system and you still take offence!

You mention having successfully used an OODBMS to store huge data. Fine. FWIW, I did too. Now given the context, I question your reasons for mentioning this fact.

(snip)
The subject of my original post.

You mean "I have a proposal for when to choose between OO and RDB" ? As
I already tried to explain, this is pure non-sens. The only sensible
thing you came with by now is that for one of your programs, choosing an
OODBMS felt more appropriate than choosing a RDBMS.


I would rather you not take offence or be so angry!

Please don't assume anything about my emotional state.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OO versus RDB
    ... and most of them uses both an OO language ... using the OO paradigm *and* uses a RDBMS. ... They are apples and oranges but they are both able to store ... With an OODBMS you have more options of avoiding RM completely, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: OO versus RDB
    ... main memory storage? ... In C we can *store* data structures in memory (let's just call it ... Suppose this CAD drawing needs to persist. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: BigNum -- Floating Point
    ... <snip English description of method> ... Mixed-base floating point, perhaps? ... use a big amount of space to store it. ... Then either you take the loss of precision like a man; ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Why tuples use parentheses ()s instead of something else like <>s?
    ... <SNIP> ... The small store to which you can walk and where you likely know the ... about Italian culture IMHO is that it appears to understand that some ... And it is truly heart-breaking to see the beautiful countryside around ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Please help with PHP/MySQL form select
    ... url that the user clicks, or you can store it in a session, or store it ... I would echo Antonio's advice - there is more to writing a program than ... simply chucking functions together in a language - the language is ... hosting it from home over a broadband link - Broadband will not serve ...
    (alt.php)