Re: Databases as objects
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Dec 2006 09:08:02 -0800
Patrick May wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Patrick May wrote:
You've got it backwards. You used the Visitor pattern in
support of one of your claims in your conversation with Neo. I
simply pointed out that it does not, in fact, support your
argument. The burden of proof is still on you to provide an
example of OO techniques leading to "tangled pasta".
There are no real rules for when to use what GOF pattern, especially
if there are competing factors. The rules of relational
normalization are governed mostly by duplication removal. All else
being equal, consistency trumps inconsistency.
So you can't provide an actual example. You should just come out
and say so.
How exactly does one provide examples to show that there are no
consistent consensus rules for something? If I say "There is no
evidence that unicorns exist", you cannot ask for an example. It is
YOUR burden to show that unicorns exist. Now, replace unicorns with
"consistent consensus rules".
Alternatively, you could simply admit to Neo that you cannot
support your assertion.
This still appears to be your only option.
Sincerely,
Patrick
-T-
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- References:
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- Prev by Date: Re: looking for a predicate hierarchy
- Next by Date: Re: Databases as objects
- Previous by thread: Re: Databases as objects
- Next by thread: Re: Databases as objects
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|