Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!attctc!pollux!ti-csl!csc.ti.com
From: perez@csc.ti.com (edward perez)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: RE: OO DBMSs
Message-ID: <90290@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>
Date: 7 Sep 89 15:17:11 GMT
Sender: news@ti-csl.csc.ti.com
Lines: 23

>In article ???, Dan Weinreb writes:
>>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
>>   prevents it from being put on top of a relational database system?
>>
>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.

so, withouth getting into your proprietary details, what is it about your design
that prevented you from using an rdb ?  is it because you would be splitting up
objects into many relations, would you lack control of the underlying storage ?
what benefits would you lose from being on top of an rdb ?  has your company
written any papers describing the architecture to show why you can't use an rdb ?
will you have any info at oopsla '89 on this ??

"inquiring minds want to know."

edward perez			apranet: perez@csc.ti.com
texas instruments                 csnet: perez%ti-csl@relay.cs.net
dallas, tx.