Re: Persistence
- From: "Dmitry Shuklin" <shuklin@xxxxx>
- Date: 14 Jul 2006 03:08:00 -0700
Hi,
I think I agree with this. If objects should be persisted I think a
database similar to a network database need to be used.
Exactly! If you interested you can see my experimental network OODB.
Unfortunatelly it doesn't have a english documentation. see
http://www.shuklin.com/ai/ht/en/cerebrum/
Why does one need objective views?
To support legacy application after data schema changes.
Does objective views correpond to
relational views?
Yes they very likely to RDB views. But not equal. When JOIN is
performed on two rows we produce new aggregate instance. And we must
define ObjectID to this instance.
If yes, doesn't it break encapsulation?
Yes it breaks encapsulation. I really think that in OODB encapsulation
is bad idea. We should use security instead of encapsulation.
Also when OODB implemented as active server then thread synchronization
and isolations is more complex task than transactions isolation in RDB.
I think this is one of the reasons why network databases were abandoned
in favour of relational (SQL) databases.
Agree.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Persistence
- From: bruno de chez modulix en face
- Re: Persistence
- References:
- Persistence
- From: frebe73
- Re: Persistence
- From: Dmitry Shuklin
- Re: Persistence
- From: frebe73
- Re: Persistence
- From: Dmitry Shuklin
- Re: Persistence
- From: frebe73
- Persistence
- Prev by Date: Re: Observer pattern limitations
- Next by Date: Re: Observer pattern limitations
- Previous by thread: Re: Persistence
- Next by thread: Re: Persistence
- Index(es):