Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!sweiger From: sweiger@sequent.UUCP (Mark Sweiger) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: SQL Poser Message-ID: <36648@sequent.UUCP> Date: 12 Jun 90 21:25:49 GMT References: <6588@umd5.umd.edu> <1990Jun1.132731.6699@oracle.com> <1990Jun4.151555.3479@oracle.com> <2371@anasaz.UUCP> Reply-To: sweiger@crg3.UUCP (Mark Sweiger) Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc Lines: 30 In article <2371@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: <...legitimate gripes about SQL/RDBMS functionality problems deleted...> >On top of this, what I really want is an Object Oriented database. >I eagerly await OODBs reaching enough market penetration that we >can use them portably. And... I hope the standards that evolve or >are created by committee take into account real world problems >such as described above. > The problem with the current OODB world is that there is no standard OODB language, unlike SQL for RDBMS. Furthermore, there seems to be no evolution toward a standard. Add to this problem the current trend toward adding object-oriented extensions to SQL (Ingres Corporation's latest "Intelligent Database" releases, for example). I have the feeling that an object-oriented SQL RDBMS is what you are going to get, if you want portability. And us "old-time religion" RDBMS types can only hope that this OO-trend does not bring back those dreadful, application dependent, pointers that we thought we managed to rid the world of through the introduction of relational technology. Sometimes OODB seems like a rediscovery of the network model with abstract datatypes thrown into the resultant soup. The abstract types I like, but the pointers I could do without. -------------------------------------------------------- -- Mark Sweiger Sequent Computer Systems Database Software Engineer 15450 SW Koll Parkway Beaverton, Oregon 97006-6063 (503)526-4329 ...{tektronix,ogcvax}!sequent!sweiger