|From:||Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>|
|To:||Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Rob Napier <rob(at)doitonce(dot)net(dot)au>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 20:15 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> I wonder if it is time to re-examine the term object-relational and
> how we explain it.
My first suggestion to consider removing the word "object" fell flat,
but I think improving the documentation around that term would help
avoid confusion (including my confusion).
Based on that thread, it seems to have something to do with
extensibility, user-defined data types, polymorphism, and overloading.
But those things seem to matter only to extension authors, so I can't
think of a way to usefully describe object-relational to new users
(aside: those we call "users" are actually developers, so they will
expect that any object-relational features are intended for them).
The only object-relational things that a new user will see are the
things I mentioned in the email linked above: OIDs, inheritance, and dot
function call syntax. And I can't think of a way to describe those
things in a way that would connect with new users, either.
|Next Message||Alejandro Carrillo||2012-08-09 17:56:44||I wish be the Colombia's Regional Contact|
|Previous Message||Chris Travers||2012-08-08 03:45:51||Re: Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!|