Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!odi!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: OO DBMSs (was Re: Extended RDB vs OODB)
Message-ID: <1989Aug28.213213.1239@odi.com>
Date: 28 Aug 89 21:32:13 GMT
References: <3560052@wdl1.UUCP> <411@odi.ODI.COM> <19@dgis.daitc.mil> <1989Aug14.140128.15094@odi.com> <27@dgis.daitc.mil> <1989Aug21.132525.3179@odi.com> <459@cimshop.UUCP>
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Lines: 13
In-reply-to: davidm@cimshop.UUCP's message of 22 Aug 89 17:45:05 GMT

In article <459@cimshop.UUCP> davidm@cimshop.UUCP (David Masterson) writes:

   Let me just ask then, is there anything inherit in your design that prevents
   it from being put on top of a relational database system (you've expressed
   requirements that prevent it [performance], but not design constraints)?  This
   question has some implications in what I am currently doing.

Yes, there is; our design could not plausibly be implemented on top of
a relational database system.  (That is, if you did, you'd lost most
of its benefits.)  The architecture just doesn't fit together that
way.

Dan Weinreb		Object Design, Inc.		dlw@odi.com