Re: Persistence
- From: "bruno de chez modulix en face" <bruno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Jul 2006 06:40:06 -0700
frebe73@xxxxxxxxx a écrit :
In the OO world, people often claim that they use a SQL database "for
persistence". Mostly I think that the person making that claim actually
uses other features - like transactions, integrity, queries, etc - and
just use the word persistence because it's a buzzword.
But sometimes
there are people that claims that only the persistence features of a
SQL database should be used or that a SQL database does not provide any
other features but persistence.
What are the opinitions at comp.object?
Well, I can only speak for myself...
1. A SQL database provides many other features but persistence and they
should be used.
Indeed. Else why use a SQL database ???
The use of the word persistence is just used in a
routine manner and is not a correct description of what we use a SQL
database for.
Part of the problem is IMHO with the definition(s) of "persistance".
environnement), "persistance" is about saving the *whole*From what I understood, in a purely OO world (like a Smalltalk
environnement state (which includes all existing objects, but also all
classes definitions etc). It's obvious that the common use of a SQL
DBMS from a program written with a file-based language (vs image-based
à la Smalltalk) has very few to do with this definition...
2. A SQL database provide many other features but persistence, but the
persistence feature is the only thing that should be used.
Why use a SQL database then ?
3. A SQL database does only provide persistence features.
no comment.
.
- References:
- Persistence
- From: frebe73
- Persistence
- Prev by Date: Re: Persistence
- Next by Date: Re: Persistence
- Previous by thread: Re: Persistence
- Next by thread: Design problem with inheritance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|