I do not argue with you. Any new approach has very hard life in the
beginning and as it is new it cannot be said that it is solid and proven, of
course. But again, this approach is not as mad as you can see. We develop
our apps in n-tier system called QI, which is based on OO DB design and I
can see, that it has very interesting features (and some issues as well, to
be honest). The future will show us.
Ales

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martijn Tonies [mailto:m.tonies@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 7:58 AM
> To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ib-support] Firebird mention
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> > You are right that inheritance can be simulated by
> additional tables and
> > views, but there is other overhead to make the views
> updateable and so on.
> > There are several object oriented database systems which
> save developer a
> > lot of time by means of inheritance of tables. This idea is
> not as mad as
> > one can say. I am sure this is the future of database programming.
>
> Inheritance and object orientation the future of database programming?
>
> Not at all - object orientation is a very nice way of
> programming - but it
> simply doesn't apply to databases. What does inheritance
> actually mean?
> Extending base classes with more functionality ... and then some. What
> does it mean with databases? Extending a table? Rubbish. The only way
> to design a database is relational - it is based on a solid
> mathematical
> foundation. Not ANY so-called "new" database mechanism is based on
> anything, let alone solid and proven.
>
> This does not mean that I reject object orientation - not at
> all, I use it
> in
> my programs extensively (Delphi, Java). But if you store
> objects, better
> create a object-relational mapping...
>
> Martijn Tonies
> InterBase Workbench - the developer tool for InterBase and Firebird
> http://www.interbaseworkbench.com
>
> Upscene Productions
> http://www.upscene.com
>
> "This is an object-oriented system.
> If we change anything, the users object."