Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!render
From: render@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: relational vs object-oriented
Message-ID: <3900005@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 89 04:39:00 GMT
References: <376@uncmed.med.unc.edu>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:uncmed.med.unc.edu:376:m.cs.uiuc.edu:3900005:000:1341
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!render    Feb 14 22:39:00 1989


Written  6:01 pm  Feb 13, 1989 by moiram@tekcae.CAX.TEK.COM:
>I have experience with two object-oriented databases, and read about a 
>couple others.  Hal is correct that there is no concensus about what 
>an OODBMS really is.  I think, however, that Hal oversimplifies what
>many people would consider essential  in the data model.  
>  [Moira goes on to point out some things I missed.]

I agree with everything Moira said.  From what I've read, the big plusses 
in OODBMS are the more advanced data structuring facilities, particularly 
the ability to define true complex objects, and the built-in object identity 
facility.  I neglected to mention these because I decided to stick with what 
I learned in my DB class about OODBMS (not much) and not mention what I've 
only read about.  One other thing I didn't discuss because I haven't read 
much about it--the ability of the user to define new operations and associate 
them with classes/types.  This is a standard feature of OOPLs like Smalltalk 
and C++ but isn't mentioned in the OODB papers I've read.  I'd be interested 
to hear from Moira (or anyone else who has used and OODBMS) if the OODBMS
they've used have facilities for defining  operations and associating them
with data types.

Hal Render
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
render@m.cs.uiuc.edu 
uiucdcsm!render