Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date: 2012-04-27 07:05:52
Message-ID: 1335510352.28653.82.camel@jdavis (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 19:27 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think having composite types and functions using them also belongs
> there.

I don't see that as particularly object-oriented. C has structs. But I
can see how it's somewhat "in the spirit of" OO.

> > Given all this, why do we still call postgres an object-relational
> > system (in the first sentence of our "About" page)?
> 
> I think it's still a good mission statement of sorts, even if most
> people don't use all the features.

The reason why I brought this up is because it seems like we've been
moving steadily *away* from these concepts the entire time I've been
involved in postgres. I don't have that strong of an opinion on the
subject, but it seems disingenuous to use "object" as the first word in
the description.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis


In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-04-27 07:34:14
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-04-27 06:44:48
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group