By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,625 Members | 1,283 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,625 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

P: n/a
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
34 Replies


P: n/a
Which object-oriented model do you mean?

"yensao" <ye************@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:91**************************@posting.google.c om...
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao

Jul 19 '05 #2

P: n/a
In article <91**************************@posting.google.com >, yensao
<ye************@yahoo.com.au> writes
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
So why send it to a group about a post-relational database?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Jul 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
ye************@yahoo.com.au (yensao) wrote in message news:<91**************************@posting.google. com>...
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?


There is not a thing called The Object-Oriented Model.
Regards
Alfredo
Jul 19 '05 #4

P: n/a
for oracle's take on it, you may want to review the their 'Application
Developer's Guide - Object-Relational Features' manual

-- mcs

"yensao" <ye************@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:91**************************@posting.google.c om...
| Hi,
| I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
| Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
| help me with this?
|
|
| Thank you in advance.
|
| Yensao
Jul 19 '05 #5

P: n/a
Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.
yensao wrote:
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao


Jul 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
Nobody <no****@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<xzbBb.65050$_M.317461@attbi_s54>...
Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.


Is this a nonsense competition?
Alfredo
Jul 19 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
Nobody <no****@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<xzbBb.65050$_M.317461@attbi_s54>...
Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.


Is this a nonsense competition?


Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.
Don't relational databases rely on foreign keys to relate data in one
table row
to another table row? I'm pretty sure they do and I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

Yes object databases are relatives of "Network Model" databases, but
so what! There are certain types of applications that can benefit from
the
use of object database systems. Personally I use all the tools at my
disposal
when architecting a solution for a particular problem. I don't try to
wedge
relational database solutions into problems that can benefit from
alternate
database technologies.

--Corey

Alfredo

Jul 19 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message
news:8F***************@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
Nobody <no****@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<xzbBb.65050$_M.317461@attbi_s54>...
Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.


Is this a nonsense competition?


Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.
Don't relational databases rely on foreign keys to relate data in one
table row
to another table row? I'm pretty sure they do and I am also pretty

sure that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.


That's about as useful as observing the difference between cars and
airplanes is to note that airplanes use bulkheads and cars use airbags.
Jul 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
No, it's more like difference between how smart you think you are and
how smart you really are. There's a *big* difference, but you'll never
see it.

Bob Badour wrote:
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message
news:8F***************@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google .com...
Nobody <no****@nowhere.net> wrote in message


news:<xzbBb.65050$_M.317461@attbi_s54>...
Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.
Is this a nonsense competition?


Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.
Don't relational databases rely on foreign keys to relate data in one
table row
to another table row? I'm pretty sure they do and I am also pretty


sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

That's about as useful as observing the difference between cars and
airplanes is to note that airplanes use bulkheads and cars use airbags.


Jul 19 '05 #10

P: n/a
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<8FlBb.6497
Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.

Is this a nonsense competition?


Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.


Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.
I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.
And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.
Yes object databases are relatives of "Network Model" databases, but
so what!
So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
That's all.
There are certain types of applications that can benefit from
the
use of object database systems.
Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations.

But you need a good knowledge on the fundamental to decide when to use
one tool or other appropiately, and the kind of nonsenses we can read
here don't help.
Personally I use all the tools at my
disposal
when architecting a solution for a particular problem.


Me too, but I try to base my decisions on accurate information.
Regards
Alfredo
Jul 19 '05 #11

P: n/a

"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<8FlBb.6497
> Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
> pointer to physical storage location.
>
> That's all.
>

Is this a nonsense competition?
Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.


Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.


This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
inappropriate remarks like this. If you have the knowledge and the
ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
telling us to go educate ourselves? Why can't you step up to the
role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
is better than another?
I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.
And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.


So your point about network databases being obsolete and discredited
doesn't count here? If using internal pointers is so foul, why doesn't
it
apply to your last statement? I know, I know go educate yourself.
Yes object databases are relatives of "Network Model" databases, but so what!
So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
That's all.


So what! There are many many examples of technologies that have
been eclipsed by better designs. It doesn't mean that the
early designs are not practical or useful anymore.
There are certain types of applications that can benefit from
the
use of object database systems.
Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations.


I don't think the circumstances are all that special. And I certainly
hope
that application architects are looking at more than just the flaws
associated
with specific db technologies, instead of looking at the overall picture
of how
and where a particular db technology is going to be used.

But you need a good knowledge on the fundamental to decide when to use
one tool or other appropiately, and the kind of nonsenses we can read
here don't help.
Please see my comment above. It doesn't do anybody any good if you're
just going to keep telling people how "misinformed" they are. Step up to
the plate and start transfering your knowledge to the people in the
trenches.
Personally I use all the tools at my
disposal
when architecting a solution for a particular problem.
Me too, but I try to base my decisions on accurate information.


Ok, but certainly you're not basing your decisions purely on the
theoretical
disadvantages of an ODBMS over an RDBMS. The whole picture of
how the application will be used, how much data will be stored, how it
will be retrieved, the complexity of the data relationships and the
environment that
the application must work in must also be taken into account.

My own automobile is theoretically and practically inferior to a new
hybrid
vehicle, but does that mean I have to stop using my car today just
because
better technology is available?

I firmly believe that both ODBMS and RDBMS technologies have areas in
which
each may excel over the other. Choose the right tool for the job, don't
choose the tool
and then force fit it into a particular job. I worked for Bell
Laboratories for over 18
years, so believe me when I tell you that I have seen more than my fair
share of applications
where the technology was decided on before the requirements were
analyzed, with the
end result being a miserable failure.

Cheers
--Corey


Regards
Alfredo

Jul 19 '05 #12

P: n/a

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden.net> wrote in message
news:uJ********************@golden.net...
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message
news:8F***************@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
Nobody <no****@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<xzbBb.65050$_M.317461@attbi_s54>...
> Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
> pointer to physical storage location.
>
> That's all.
>

Is this a nonsense competition?


Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.
Don't relational databases rely on foreign keys to relate data in one table row
to another table row? I'm pretty sure they do and I am also pretty

sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.


That's about as useful as observing the difference between cars and
airplanes is to note that airplanes use bulkheads and cars use airbags.


Let's not confuse safety features with structural features here Bob. I
think
my answer to Alfredo pretty much sums up what an end user (programmer)
encounters when using these two technologies. I think it is useful for a
programmer
or architect to know the limitations of either technology, but I don't
think that
they have to hold a PhD in database theory in order to make educated
decisions
about when to use one technology over the other.

Please, if you can't share you knowledge with others in a civilized
manner
then don't bother to post these kinds of snide remarks here. From
reading your
other posts I take it that you have a high level of understanding of the
theory behind database technology. Unfortunately you tend to stoop to
juvenile behavior when it comes to responding to the vast majority of
the posts in this forum. If I wanted to read that kind of crap, I could
just
as easily tune over to the Linux groups and take part in a flame fest
about
which editor I think is best. Let's leave that for the kiddies ok?

--Corey

Jul 19 '05 #13

P: n/a
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message
news:i6******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net.. .

"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<8FlBb.6497
> > Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
> > pointer to physical storage location.
> >
> > That's all.
> >
>
> Is this a nonsense competition?

Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.


Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.


This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
inappropriate remarks like this. If you have the knowledge and the
ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
telling us to go educate ourselves? Why can't you step up to the
role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
is better than another?


With all due respect, neither I nor Alfredo owe you or anyone else an
elementary education in the fundamentals of your practice. You, on the other
hand, have a responsibility to educate yourself in those fundamentals.

I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.


And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.


So your point about network databases being obsolete and discredited
doesn't count here? If using internal pointers is so foul, why doesn't
it
apply to your last statement?


Your remarks betray ignorance of data management fundamentals and a profound
confusion between the logical and the physical. A physical pointer is
perfectly appropriate at the physical level provided no user ever interacts
with it directly at the logical level.
I know, I know go educate yourself.
In your case: Very sound advice.

Yes object databases are relatives of "Network Model" databases, but so what!


So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
That's all.


So what! There are many many examples of technologies that have
been eclipsed by better designs.


ODBMS is not a new design and has eclipsed nothing. Only an ignoramus such
as yourself could fail to recognize those facts.

There are certain types of applications that can benefit from
the
use of object database systems.


Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations.


I don't think the circumstances are all that special.


Since you base your conclusions on ignorance, I fail to see why anyone
should care what you think.

But you need a good knowledge on the fundamental to decide when to use
one tool or other appropiately, and the kind of nonsenses we can read
here don't help.


Please see my comment above. It doesn't do anybody any good if you're
just going to keep telling people how "misinformed" they are. Step up

to the plate and start transfering your knowledge to the people in the
trenches.


Fuck you, you lazy, ignorant freeloader. I paid for my education. Go pay for
your own.

[remainder of demanding, ignorant nonsense snipped]

plonk
Jul 19 '05 #14

P: n/a

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden.net> wrote in message
news:SJ********************@golden.net...
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message
news:i6******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net.. .

Please see my comment above. It doesn't do anybody any good if you're just going to keep telling people how "misinformed" they are. Step
up to
the plate and start transfering your knowledge to the people in the
trenches.
Fuck you, you lazy, ignorant freeloader. I paid for my education. Go pay

for your own.
Bob I am very well educated, thank you very little. I think your last
response
speaks volumes about your own educational background and personality
type.

If you can't respond to posts on this forum in a fair and professional
manner, please do us all a favor and don't respond at all.

--Corey

[remainder of demanding, ignorant nonsense snipped]

plonk

Jul 19 '05 #15

P: n/a
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<i6******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net> ...
Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.
Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.


This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
inappropriate remarks like this.


You didn't asked why it is nonsense, you asked why I don't explain
that. I answered appropiately to your direct question.
If you have the knowledge and the
ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
telling us to go educate ourselves?
Among other things because a few minutes are not enough if you don't
have a clue, but I gave very good bibliography.
Why can't you step up to the
role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
is better than another?
I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.
I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.
And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.


So your point about network databases being obsolete and discredited
doesn't count here? If using internal pointers is so foul, why doesn't
it
apply to your last statement? I know, I know go educate yourself.


You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.
So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
That's all.


So what! There are many many examples of technologies that have
been eclipsed by better designs. It doesn't mean that the
early designs are not practical or useful anymore.


If the new approach is better in all situations then the old approach
is not useful anymore.
Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations.


I don't think the circumstances are all that special.


Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.
And I certainly
hope
that application architects are looking at more than just the flaws
associated
with specific db technologies
There are many application architects that ignore the funtamentals of
data management.

The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.

The very first implementations of superior technologies are often
worse at practice than the older products.
Me too, but I try to base my decisions on accurate information.


Ok, but certainly you're not basing your decisions purely on the
theoretical
disadvantages of an ODBMS over an RDBMS.


This thread is about a theoretical question: the differences between
the relational and the OO approaches, but it seems you don't
distinguish very well between model and implementation.
The whole picture of
how the application will be used, how much data will be stored, how it
will be retrieved, the complexity of the data relationships and the
environment that
the application must work in must also be taken into account.
The complexity plays against the network approach.
My own automobile is theoretically and practically inferior to a new
hybrid
vehicle, but does that mean I have to stop using my car today just
because
better technology is available?
No, but if the new technology is actually better we should stop making
traditional cars.
I firmly believe that both ODBMS and RDBMS technologies have areas in
which
each may excel over the other.
And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.
years, so believe me when I tell you that I have seen more than my fair
share of applications
where the technology was decided on before the requirements were
analyzed, with the
end result being a miserable failure.


Again, The Relational Model and The Network Model are not
technologies, they are models.

Regards
Alfredo
Jul 19 '05 #16

P: n/a

"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<i6******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net> ...
> Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is > nonsense.

Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.
This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
inappropriate remarks like this.


You didn't asked why it is nonsense, you asked why I don't explain
that. I answered appropiately to your direct question.


Sorry Alfredo, I thought we were both focused on the broader
question instead of the getting bogged down in the details.
If you have the knowledge and the
ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
telling us to go educate ourselves?
Among other things because a few minutes are not enough if you don't
have a clue, but I gave very good bibliography.


Ok, I can agree on the bibliography part, but let's calm down
on the "clueless" part for a little bit. You don't know me from
Adam, so please stop making snap judgements about me and
the others who post on this forum.
Why can't you step up to the
role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
is better than another?
I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.


Actually, the original poster may NOT have been talking about models but
about physical implementations. No one is confusing the two except for
you.

> I am also pretty sure
> that ODBM
> systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.
So your point about network databases being obsolete and discredited
doesn't count here? If using internal pointers is so foul, why doesn't
it
apply to your last statement? I know, I know go educate yourself.


You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.


Yes I do Alfredo, but to date we have not been talking about the
differences
between physical and logical. We have been talking about physical
differences
between ODBMS and RDBMS implementations, at least I have, you seem
to be reading from a different hymnal.
So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
That's all.
So what! There are many many examples of technologies that have
been eclipsed by better designs. It doesn't mean that the
early designs are not practical or useful anymore.


If the new approach is better in all situations then the old approach
is not useful anymore.


I completely disagree. Have you given up the land line in your house
just because cell phones are considered better technology? Have you
switched from antenna and or cable to satellite because HDTV is
available. Will those technologies eventually eclipse older ones, you
bet, but not over night.
Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations.
I don't think the circumstances are all that special.


Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.


Sorry Alfredo, I don't ignore the fundamentals anymore than you do.
But I am fairly grounded in reality though and will continue to choose
the right tool to do the job based on the ENTIRE scope of the work.
And I certainly
hope
that application architects are looking at more than just the flaws
associated
with specific db technologies
There are many application architects that ignore the funtamentals of
data management.


See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
cannot
dispose religion with technological fact.

The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.
Excellent, now were grounding out. There are implementation flaws
in ALL technologies. Those that can see and understand those flaws
are not doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.

The very first implementations of superior technologies are often
worse at practice than the older products.
Agreed.
Me too, but I try to base my decisions on accurate information.
Ok, but certainly you're not basing your decisions purely on the
theoretical
disadvantages of an ODBMS over an RDBMS.


This thread is about a theoretical question: the differences between
the relational and the OO approaches, but it seems you don't
distinguish very well between model and implementation.


There you go again. We weren't talking about models to begin with.
Ok, maybe you were but I was not. So cut me some slack here ok?
The whole picture of
how the application will be used, how much data will be stored, how it will be retrieved, the complexity of the data relationships and the
environment that
the application must work in must also be taken into account.
The complexity plays against the network approach.


I believe that the circumstances surrounding the requirements play a
major factor in this argument. As an example, several years ago I
was responsible for the design and implementation of a modified
Dijkstra's algorithm to be used in automatic network restorations
of core transport facilities at a large telecom company. The requirement
was for us to be able to complelely restore service for the first 100
failed T3 lines within 5 seconds of the actual failure. The network
was comprised of thousands of nodes with hundreds of thousands
of interconnections between them (mesh network). The only way
we could meet the requirement, while using a relational database
as the underlying data store, was to build out a network representation
of the network in memory first. There was just no way to execute
queries against the RDBMS fast enough in order to meet the requirements
for the application. We're talking about a very complex data model here.
Fortunately we were able to implement the solution using a high
performance
object database (Versant) and were easily able to meet our performance
requirements without having to build an in memory representation of the
actual network.
Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data. But then again we're
talking
about a very specialized database. This was NOT a shopping cart
application
used for buying CDs on the internet!
My own automobile is theoretically and practically inferior to a new
hybrid
vehicle, but does that mean I have to stop using my car today just
because
better technology is available?
No, but if the new technology is actually better we should stop making
traditional cars.


Agreed, but again reality gets in the way. There are certain classes of
vehicles that do not lend themselves well to hybrid power plants.
Hybrids
are not known for the kind of power, in terms of torque, necessary to
move an 18 wheel truck up a 10% grade. Electric motors can produce
mountains of torque, even more when coupled to a reducing gear set, but
at
the cost of power consumption. How does this relate to the current
discussion? It's just another example of how alternate and often
inferior
technology can be used to acomplish a given (real) task.
I firmly believe that both ODBMS and RDBMS technologies have areas in which
each may excel over the other.
And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.


Let's lose the whole "ignorance" thing ok? We are all ignorant about a
great many things, but you don't hear me calling you ignorant because
you
can't build jet engines do you?
years, so believe me when I tell you that I have seen more than my fair share of applications
where the technology was decided on before the requirements were
analyzed, with the
end result being a miserable failure.
Again, The Relational Model and The Network Model are not
technologies, they are models.


Great! so let's make sure we're both reading from the same page before
we start in with personal insults, ok?

Cheers
--Corey

Regards
Alfredo

Jul 19 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<AO*************@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.
Actually, the original poster may NOT have been talking about models but
about physical implementations. No one is confusing the two except for
you.


This is the original question:

"I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?"

It is crystal clear. Isn't it?
You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.


Yes I do Alfredo, but to date we have not been talking about the
differences
between physical and logical. We have been talking about physical
differences
between ODBMS and RDBMS implementations, at least I have, you seem
to be reading from a different hymnal.


Each OODBMS and each SQL DBMS may have a different implementation
technology, so what you say does not make sense.
If the new approach is better in all situations then the old approach
is not useful anymore.


I completely disagree. Have you given up the land line in your house
just because cell phones are considered better technology?


Bad example. Land lines have many advantages over cell phones.
Have you
switched from antenna and or cable to satellite because HDTV is
available. Will those technologies eventually eclipse older ones, you
bet, but not over night.
Another bad example. HDTV is possible and avaiable with cable and
antenna.
Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.


Sorry Alfredo, I don't ignore the fundamentals anymore than you do.


This is in contradiction with your posts.
See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
cannot
dispose religion with technological fact.
I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.
The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.


Excellent, now were grounding out. There are implementation flaws
in ALL technologies. Those that can see and understand those flaws
are not doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.


If the flaws are solved, then the inferior approach hasn't anything to
do. Inferior approaches are dead ends.
The complexity plays against the network approach.


of interconnections between them (mesh network). The only way
we could meet the requirement, while using a relational database
as the underlying data store, was to build out a network representation
of the network in memory first.


Due to the flaws of the SQL DBMS implementation. BTW SQL DBMSes can't
be considered as truly RDBMSes.
Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data.
And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide
physical independence. You would have the same performance or better,
ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model.
That is what I am trying to say all the time.
No, but if the new technology is actually better we should stop making
traditional cars.


Agreed, but again reality gets in the way. There are certain classes of
vehicles that do not lend themselves well to hybrid power plants.


So they are not better in all circumstances. So it was a bad analogy
because it is proven that The Relational Model is superior to the
network approach in all means.
And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.


Let's lose the whole "ignorance" thing ok?


Why?

Which euphemism do you like?
We are all ignorant about a
great many things
Indeed, so there isn't anything insultant in the term.
, but you don't hear me calling you ignorant because
you
can't build jet engines do you?


I am utter ignorant about aeronautics and many other things, If you
say I am ignorant about aeronautics or bulgarian literature for
instance, I would agree without any problem.
Regards
Alfredo
Jul 19 '05 #18

P: n/a
"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<AO*************@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.


Actually, the original poster may NOT have been talking about models but
about physical implementations. No one is confusing the two except for you.


This is the original question:

"I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?"

It is crystal clear. Isn't it?


Yes, it is crystal clear to those who comprehend simple written english.
Also direct him to the subject line that contrasts a model with a
model--well, with an alleged or hypothetical model in any case.

You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.


Yes I do Alfredo, but to date we have not been talking about the
differences
between physical and logical. We have been talking about physical
differences
between ODBMS and RDBMS implementations, at least I have, you seem
to be reading from a different hymnal.


Each OODBMS and each SQL DBMS may have a different implementation
technology, so what you say does not make sense.


I also observe that he clearly demonstrates his ignorance and confusion
regarding the difference between the logical and the physical when he
includes strictly physical issues in discussions of strictly logical topics.

Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.


Sorry Alfredo, I don't ignore the fundamentals anymore than you do.


This is in contradiction with your posts.


His profound ignorance of fundamentals prevents him from even knowing what
the fundamentals are. I am sure he considers whatever his ignorant
prejudices tell him are fundamental. I find it sad (perhaps pathetic is more
appropriate) that so many vociferous ignorami pollute and debase our
profession.

See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
cannot
dispose religion with technological fact.


I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.


To the devoted zealot, there is only religion.

The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.


Excellent, now were grounding out. There are implementation flaws
in ALL technologies. Those that can see and understand those flaws
are not doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.


If the flaws are solved, then the inferior approach hasn't anything to
do. Inferior approaches are dead ends.


Alfredo, you will never reach a person who cannot distinguish between a
property of an implementation and a property of a technology even when
stated explicitly. He is not only ignorant: his thinking is generally
confused and his values backward.

Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data.


And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide
physical independence. You would have the same performance or better,
ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model.
That is what I am trying to say all the time.


I am surprised you let the suggestion he lost only one thing stand
unchallenged. Given there is no difference between an ad hoc query and a
well-formed formula, he lost the ability to express integrity. Given there
is no difference between an ad hoc query and a view or snapshot derivation,
he lost the ability to derive additional views of the data with the
concomitant loss of logical independence. He lost simplicity. He lost
elegance. He lost portability. He lost the ability to benefit from real
advances to the state of the art of data management.

And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.


Let's lose the whole "ignorance" thing ok?


Why?

Which euphemism do you like?


The power to lose the whole ignorance thing remains solely in his hands. To
lose it, he need only learn the fundamentals of his profession. He could
start by opening a good book.

We are all ignorant about a
great many things


Indeed, so there isn't anything insultant in the term.
, but you don't hear me calling you ignorant because
you
can't build jet engines do you?


I am utter ignorant about aeronautics and many other things, If you
say I am ignorant about aeronautics or bulgarian literature for
instance, I would agree without any problem.


The big differenc between you and Corey is you do not pretend to know
aeronautics or bulgarian literature and you do not make public
pronouncements or suggestions on either topic.
Jul 19 '05 #19

P: n/a

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden.net> wrote in message
news:uf********************@golden.net...
"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
"Corey Brown" <co***@spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<AO*************@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...


And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide
physical independence. You would have the same performance or better,
ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model.
That is what I am trying to say all the time.


I am surprised you let the suggestion he lost only one thing stand
unchallenged. Given there is no difference between an ad hoc query and a
well-formed formula, he lost the ability to express integrity. Given there
is no difference between an ad hoc query and a view or snapshot

derivation, he lost the ability to derive additional views of the data with the
concomitant loss of logical independence. He lost simplicity. He lost
elegance. He lost portability. He lost the ability to benefit from real
advances to the state of the art of data management.
I guess real world experience just doesn't cut it with you guys. I
clearly
said that the RDBMS that we were using, was just not up to the task!
And BTW, it was the best RDBMS available at the time. Yes I can see
Bob's point that we lost a lot of things, but I was still responsible
for meeting
the requirement and because of the highly specialized nature of the
application,
we never missed the other attributes that Bob mentioned.

Don't get me wrong. I am not an ODBMS bigot. There are just certain
applications
that are better served by using an ODBMS. This happened to be one of
them.
It was highly specialized, had a very complex data model and we used OO
technology
to build the applications business logic. All of which lend themselves
very well to
the use of an ODBMS as a persistent store.

> And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.

Let's lose the whole "ignorance" thing ok?
Why?

Which euphemism do you like?
Ok Alfredo, I can see now that there's just going to be no talking to
you
or Bob on any sort of adult level.

The power to lose the whole ignorance thing remains solely in his hands. To lose it, he need only learn the fundamentals of his profession. He could
start by opening a good book.
Bob i've read more then my share of good books in the areas that most
interest me and are important to my profession. Datasbase technology
just happens to be one small subset of a much larger whole that I have
to take into account on each project that I take part in.

We are all ignorant about a
great many things
Indeed, so there isn't anything insultant in the term.
There is if you keep liberally spreading the term throughout your
responses.
Read Bob response to your response. I think he actually managed to use
the word "ignorant" in every single sentence he wrote.
, but you don't hear me calling you ignorant because
you
can't build jet engines do you?


I am utter ignorant about aeronautics and many other things, If you
say I am ignorant about aeronautics or bulgarian literature for
instance, I would agree without any problem.


The big differenc between you and Corey is you do not pretend to know
aeronautics or bulgarian literature and you do not make public
pronouncements or suggestions on either topic.


Bob, have you ever added anything worth reading to this forum? I've
been a long time silent reader of this forum and I can't remember when
I have ever read anything even mildly useful in any of your posts. In
fact,
I know that if I open one of your posts i'm going to see snide remarks
and personal attacks and no meaningful content. The whole thing with the
f*^k you response was priceless. You're burning your bridges before
you're even getting to them. Seek help Bob, seek help.

Jul 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
In article <i6******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Corey Brown
<co***@spectrumsoftware.net> writes
Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.


This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
inappropriate remarks like this. If you have the knowledge and the
ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
telling us to go educate ourselves? Why can't you step up to the
role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
is better than another?


The trouble with those people is that they think mathematics
*determines* the world. They seem incapable of understanding that
mathematics is only of any use when it *describes* the world.

If you're talking SCIENCE, then the big fly in the ointment with using
maths to describe the world is h, the planck constant. As I see it, the
relational database people simply ASSUME that there is no equivalent to
h as far as data is concerned. Experience says that an equivalent
probably does exist.

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Jul 19 '05 #21

P: n/a
In article <i6******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Corey Brown
<co***@spectrumsoftware.net> writes
Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.


This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
inappropriate remarks like this. If you have the knowledge and the
ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
telling us to go educate ourselves? Why can't you step up to the
role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
is better than another?


The trouble with those people is that they think mathematics
*determines* the world. They seem incapable of understanding that
mathematics is only of any use when it *describes* the world.

If you're talking SCIENCE, then the big fly in the ointment with using
maths to describe the world is h, the planck constant. As I see it, the
relational database people simply ASSUME that there is no equivalent to
h as far as data is concerned. Experience says that an equivalent
probably does exist.

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Jul 19 '05 #22

P: n/a
In article <e4**************************@posting.google.com >, Alfredo
Novoa <al*****@ncs.es> writes
See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
cannot
dispose religion with technological fact.


I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.


Actually, I've heard it argued, LOGICALLY, that Mathematics is the only
religion that can PROVE it is a religion :-)

Mathematics (as in the BELIEF that set theory actually describes the
real world) can be nothing BUT a religion. I have yet to see anybody
even ATTEMPT to provide proof that it actually works, and I've asked
often enough, on these very newsgroups! Its proponents just ASSUME that
it works, without any evidence.

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Jul 19 '05 #23

P: n/a
In article <e4**************************@posting.google.com >, Alfredo
Novoa <al*****@ncs.es> writes
See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
cannot
dispose religion with technological fact.


I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.


Actually, I've heard it argued, LOGICALLY, that Mathematics is the only
religion that can PROVE it is a religion :-)

Mathematics (as in the BELIEF that set theory actually describes the
real world) can be nothing BUT a religion. I have yet to see anybody
even ATTEMPT to provide proof that it actually works, and I've asked
often enough, on these very newsgroups! Its proponents just ASSUME that
it works, without any evidence.

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Jul 19 '05 #24

P: n/a
"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden.net> wrote in message news:<uf********************@golden.net>...
"I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?"

It is crystal clear. Isn't it?
Yes, it is crystal clear to those who comprehend simple written english.


It seems to me that the inability to comprehend simple statemens is a
constant among the advocates of primitive data management approaches.
Also direct him to the subject line that contrasts a model with a
model--well, with an alleged or hypothetical model in any case.
Indeed.
His profound ignorance of fundamentals prevents him from even knowing what
the fundamentals are.
A vicious circle that traps many people.
I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.


To the devoted zealot, there is only religion.


And all knowledge is belief.
Alfredo, you will never reach a person who cannot distinguish between a
property of an implementation and a property of a technology even when
stated explicitly.


I am afraid you are right.
Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data.


And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide
physical independence. You would have the same performance or better,
ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model.
That is what I am trying to say all the time.


I am surprised you let the suggestion he lost only one thing stand
unchallenged.


Well, I was trying to reason with him in little steps. Of course they
lost many other things.
Regards
Alfredo
Jul 19 '05 #25

P: n/a
"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden.net> wrote in message news:<uf********************@golden.net>...
"I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?"

It is crystal clear. Isn't it?
Yes, it is crystal clear to those who comprehend simple written english.


It seems to me that the inability to comprehend simple statemens is a
constant among the advocates of primitive data management approaches.
Also direct him to the subject line that contrasts a model with a
model--well, with an alleged or hypothetical model in any case.
Indeed.
His profound ignorance of fundamentals prevents him from even knowing what
the fundamentals are.
A vicious circle that traps many people.
I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.


To the devoted zealot, there is only religion.


And all knowledge is belief.
Alfredo, you will never reach a person who cannot distinguish between a
property of an implementation and a property of a technology even when
stated explicitly.


I am afraid you are right.
Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data.


And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide
physical independence. You would have the same performance or better,
ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model.
That is what I am trying to say all the time.


I am surprised you let the suggestion he lost only one thing stand
unchallenged.


Well, I was trying to reason with him in little steps. Of course they
lost many other things.
Regards
Alfredo
Jul 19 '05 #26

P: n/a
I dont beleive this is correct as my experience with R83 pick 15 years ago
accesses data using linked chains with a direct reference to Physical
storage location on disk. Anyone who ever had a GFE (Lost chain) will know
this. I have on a few occasions had to go through the physical chains and
repair them. This is primarly why Pick was always so fast using pre
allocated chunks of space on physical disk in a contiguous blocks so related
data is referenced in a continues read primarly on the same sector on Hard
disk. This is why housekeeping file sizing was so important so as not to
have any data fill beyond its allocated file size and flow into overflow
space (kind of a pre allocated area for file fragements on disk).

So I think that this (I might be wrong) proves
"Nobody" <no****@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:xzbBb.65050$_M.317461@attbi_s54...
Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.
yensao wrote:
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao

Jul 19 '05 #27

P: n/a
Hi Yensao,

Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model are kind of
apple and oranges.

Relational model usually uses to design tables of relational database.
Most common language for it is Entity-Relationship diagrams. That
diagrams describes only simple static relations between thinks
(entities).

Object-oriented model often uses UML that consist of 9 types of
diagrams for describing static and dynamic behaviour of system. Most
useful and powerful using of UML is design and documenting system
written on object oriented languages like java or C++. It is possible
to use UML to describe relational database but it looks clumsy.

In fact problem how to strictly much object-oriented and relational
representation is a big unsolved problem in modern compute science.
And now were created some big and difficult for using frameworks that
convert objects to database (in fact implementation of one model to
another). For example Oracle BC4J and TopLink. So both models are
useful but describe very different parts of software systems.

Regards,

Michael
Brainbench MVP for Oracle Programming
http://www.brainbench.com

ye************@yahoo.com.au (yensao) wrote in message news:<91**************************@posting.google. com>...
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao

Jul 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
Michael,

I strongly suggest you learn some elementary data management before you post
long detailed messages about the subject. Your post reveals profound
ignorance on your part and is full of all too common misconception. You do
everyone a tremendous disfavour by repeating such nonsense.

Although, I can see why you would call yourself a most vociferous person.

plonk

"Michael Kuznetsov" <mv***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1**************************@posting.google.c om...
Hi Yensao,

Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model are kind of
apple and oranges.

Relational model usually uses to design tables of relational database.
Most common language for it is Entity-Relationship diagrams. That
diagrams describes only simple static relations between thinks
(entities).

Object-oriented model often uses UML that consist of 9 types of
diagrams for describing static and dynamic behaviour of system. Most
useful and powerful using of UML is design and documenting system
written on object oriented languages like java or C++. It is possible
to use UML to describe relational database but it looks clumsy.

In fact problem how to strictly much object-oriented and relational
representation is a big unsolved problem in modern compute science.
And now were created some big and difficult for using frameworks that
convert objects to database (in fact implementation of one model to
another). For example Oracle BC4J and TopLink. So both models are
useful but describe very different parts of software systems.

Regards,

Michael
Brainbench MVP for Oracle Programming
http://www.brainbench.com

ye************@yahoo.com.au (yensao) wrote in message

news:<91**************************@posting.google. com>...
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao

Jul 19 '05 #29

P: n/a
You are missing the point. When I said "some sort of physical pointer"
I didn't mean direct file offset: I glossed over this because different
systems implement it differently. You can't apply your one experience
to a whole class of databases; there is no rule saying a database must
exist in one file.

The point of my posting was the static versus dynamic relationships
between objects.
Craig Tait wrote:
I dont beleive this is correct as my experience with R83 pick 15 years ago
accesses data using linked chains with a direct reference to Physical
storage location on disk. Anyone who ever had a GFE (Lost chain) will know
this. I have on a few occasions had to go through the physical chains and
repair them. This is primarly why Pick was always so fast using pre
allocated chunks of space on physical disk in a contiguous blocks so related
data is referenced in a continues read primarly on the same sector on Hard
disk. This is why housekeeping file sizing was so important so as not to
have any data fill beyond its allocated file size and flow into overflow
space (kind of a pre allocated area for file fragements on disk).

So I think that this (I might be wrong) proves
"Nobody" <no****@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:xzbBb.65050$_M.317461@attbi_s54...
Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.
yensao wrote:
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao



Jul 19 '05 #30

P: n/a
Relax pal. So many emotions from a so short message.

I have been working both with object oriented design and database
design 10 years. Sorry if my point of view on this subject is very
different for yours.

Happy New Year!

Mike
"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden.net> wrote in message news:<3v********************@golden.net>...
Michael,

I strongly suggest you learn some elementary data management before you post
long detailed messages about the subject. Your post reveals profound
ignorance on your part and is full of all too common misconception. You do
everyone a tremendous disfavour by repeating such nonsense.

Although, I can see why you would call yourself a most vociferous person.

plonk

"Michael Kuznetsov" <mv***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1**************************@posting.google.c om...
Hi Yensao,

Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model are kind of
apple and oranges.

Relational model usually uses to design tables of relational database.
Most common language for it is Entity-Relationship diagrams. That
diagrams describes only simple static relations between thinks
(entities).

Object-oriented model often uses UML that consist of 9 types of
diagrams for describing static and dynamic behaviour of system. Most
useful and powerful using of UML is design and documenting system
written on object oriented languages like java or C++. It is possible
to use UML to describe relational database but it looks clumsy.

In fact problem how to strictly much object-oriented and relational
representation is a big unsolved problem in modern compute science.
And now were created some big and difficult for using frameworks that
convert objects to database (in fact implementation of one model to
another). For example Oracle BC4J and TopLink. So both models are
useful but describe very different parts of software systems.

Regards,

Michael
Brainbench MVP for Oracle Programming
http://www.brainbench.com

ye************@yahoo.com.au (yensao) wrote in message

news:<91**************************@posting.google. com>...
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.

Yensao

Jul 19 '05 #31

P: n/a
mv***@hotmail.com (Michael Kuznetsov) wrote in message news:<a1**************************@posting.google. com>...
Relax pal. So many emotions from a so short message.

I have been working both with object oriented design and database
design 10 years.
It does not mean anything.
Sorry if my point of view on this subject is very
different for yours.


It is not a point of view issue, your post revealed profound ignorance
on the topic indeed.
Regards
Alfredo
Jul 19 '05 #32

P: n/a
"Alfredo Novoa" <al*****@ncs.es> wrote in message
news:e4**************************@posting.google.c om...
mv***@hotmail.com (Michael Kuznetsov) wrote in message

news:<a1**************************@posting.google. com>...
Relax pal. So many emotions from a so short message.


I twit-filtered the guy so I never saw his response. I find it amusing he
assumes my reply involved any particular emotion. Why is it so difficult for
some people to accept one can dispassionately observe that a vociferous
ignoramus is an ignoramus?

(A word to the wise: Anyone, who puts MVP after his or her name, posts to
stroke his or her own ego and for no other reason.)
Jul 19 '05 #33

P: n/a
In article <gSzIb.703884$Tr4.1770994@attbi_s03>, Nobody
<no****@nowhere.net> writes
You are missing the point. When I said "some sort of physical pointer"
I didn't mean direct file offset: I glossed over this because different
systems implement it differently. You can't apply your one experience
to a whole class of databases; there is no rule saying a database must
exist in one file.


Except that in this particular case, what you are thinking of as a file
is actually the entire disk as a raw device ...

Not having any experience of R83 I can't be sure, but I think you'll
find "the database is the computer" :-)

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Jul 19 '05 #34

P: n/a

"Anthony W. Youngman" <th*******@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:td**************@thewolery.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
Except that in this particular case, what you are thinking of as a file is actually the entire disk as a raw device ...

Not having any experience of R83 I can't be sure, but I think you'll
find "the database is the computer" :-)

[snip]

In a sense that it true in that typically the file pointers reside in
a dictionary, the dictionaries reside in a VOC or master dictionary
(the account), and the accounts pointers reside in the system account.
Basically. I believe that is still the strategy of many platforms,
but they also support other file implementations as well. Of course I
have to
wonder if disk fragmentation would not disrupt this as much as frame
overflow. I don't think this is an issue.

However, to my knowledge R83 is a standard for the language and
functionality rather than a definition of how the files are physically
implemented within the system. For instance, our ARev code is R83
compliant, so we don't make use of any of the form / screen generation
features present in ARev. The point to R83 was to extend the platform
independence of the "OS" to the code level.

An example of an R83 issue would be the ability to transfer control
from one program to another in BASIC. A permanent transfer existed
for a long time (as in "CHAIN".) Different platforms developed
various language syntax to temporarily transfer control to another
program and then return control to the original program. This took
the form of a PERFORM or EXECUTE statements with various different
parameters and features that were in need of some standardisation.
This is of course distinct from using a SUBROUTINE CALL (I guess
comparable to using an interface), or a GOSUB (a local function) or
shelling out to the host operating system.

Perhaps wiser soles could expand upon or correct some of this.

Regards, Dave Horsman
Jul 19 '05 #35

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.