bruce_bacheller wrote:

>Although Firebird itself doesn't support it you may want to look at an
>ObjectRelationalMapping tool like Hibernate.
>
>
>

What is the problem you are trying to solve? Solutions without problems
are a dime a dozen.

The database world started with the hierachical model. IMS and the
Datacomputer. The hierarchical model didn't work. People spent a lot
of time and effort on "network" (aka CODASYL) databases. Cullinane and
DEC made some money, but they didn't go anywhere. Then there was entity
attribute model. Made good slides but very bad software. For a while
we had fierce competition among the OO database companies. The
commonality was they all lost a lot of money and the companies all
died. Then along came Data Blades that made a lot M&E guys really rich,
but after three consecutive acquisitions, nada.

Trying to marry concepts is a fool's errand.

The relational model created a big stir even before Codd's first papers
were published. The cognizenti saw a clean model that gave developers
the freedom to make it sing. There are dozen dozens of relational
products that have met their objectives. The wise people who sat on
their hands during hierarchical, network, entity-attribution, and object
models jumped in an embraced relational.

Relational isn't the most expressive model -- the semantic model beats
it hands down. It isn't the fastest -- it always looses to 80 byte
packed records. But it is general, malleable, and forgiving. It models
many things well, but not perfectly.

I've worked on hierarchical (Datacomputer), network (DBMS-11), and
relational (Rdb/ELN, Interbase, Netfrastructure, and Firebird).
Relational sings to me.

New ideas are great. They're exciting and I love them. But please,
lets start with problems to be solved, not solutions looking for
problems. Life is short enough.