Re: ORDBMS

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> I've asked this one before, I believe, some ppl have referred to us as
> already being ORDBMS "material", but am not quite sure what that means in
> our case ... how "ORDBMS" are we, and what is required to extend that?

I think putting some work and thought into inheritance and making it work
right would make a lot of people very happy, and inheritance is one of the
major ideas behind OO in any context. Another thing to expand upon would
be using classes ("tables") as datatypes. I believe this is doesn't work
all that well. But we're surely "ORDBMS material", if you like.

Pure object-oriented databases (which is where the oid thing comes from)
are somewhat separate though, they represent a paradigm shift similar to
moving from, say, hierarchical or network databases to relational ones.
The research in that area is not at all complete and it lacks a
standardized query language and a whole bunch of other stuff. Since a
major goal of this project is moving ever closer to SQL compliance,
becoming an "OODB" is not in the near future.

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden