RDBMS != Object Store
This Slashdot comment just might be the most informative and eye opening thing I’ve ever read in 3+ years of slashdot addiction. Here’s the poster’s summary:
“There is an insoluble tension, or impedance mismatch, between OO and RDBMS. OO is about classes with structure and objects with identity. RDBMS is about relations bearing tuples satisfying predicates. OO lets you pass around structure, data, and behavior by handing someone a pointer. RDBMS lets you derive new facts (in new structures) from known facts.
These are not the same kind of thing, and there exists no natural mapping from one to the other. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. If you want an object store, get an object store; if you want to store facts and derive other facts from them, an object store will not help you — you need an RDBMS. “
My own knowledge of the OO ideology is still relatively young, but since my introduction to some of it’s common design patterns I’ve struggled with the seemingly forced RDBMS object storage idea. Now, I think I need to look further into the realm of object stores beyond RDBMS’s. If this isn’t news to you please feel free to drop some hints as to where to look for alternate OO data stores (especially in terms of stateless web application development, if such a thing exists??)
It’s very late and I’ve had way too much caffeine today so I hope this all still makes sense to me in the morning.
Originally published on RDBMS != Object Store'">Wednesday September 24, 2003 at 3:04 am
Comments were disabled for this post. This happens for a variety of reasons and most likely it's not your fault. Unless you're a spammer. Then it might be your fault.