![]() ![]() ![]() Poor representation of real world entities Poor support for integrity & business constraints. Although recent improvements in ORM tooling have made relational much more pleasant to work with, the ORM+RDBMS solution still can't keep up with ODBMS systems in a few key areas (see the previously mentioned article on ).2 Database Models Transition Hierarchical Data Model Network Data Model Relational Data Model ER Data Model Semantic Data Model Object-Relational DM Object-Oriented DM 2ģ Main Issues Relational DBMS Limitations What is an OODBMS? Advantages and Disadvantages of OODBMS What is an ORDBMS? What is SQ元? Comparison of OODBMS and ORDBMS When to use an OODBMS When to use an ORDBMS 3Ĥ Relational DBMS Limitations Semantic overloading. I've been using ODBMS for many years, and have been dreading the project which requires me to return to purely relational data management. That said, your individual production lines might benefit greatly from an ODBMS which are great at storing oft-changing complex object models and schemas while the orchestrator system could follow my previous line of thinking. ![]() (newer ODBMS/RDBMS replication like dRS for db4o may be a good fit) But if you need tight integration with legacy or enterprise datastores, then you're usually forced to use the RDBMS for one reason or another. If you can integrate via web services or "push/pull" into an enterprise system DB, then you can still use an ODBMS, but there might be political pressure against it. If your project does not necessarily need to integrate, ODBMS is usually easier or technically superior. I usually draw the line of usefulness at the point in which they need to be integrated into enterprise systems. I'm not saying don't use OOP code to deal with the database, just that OOP was invented for a different kind of problem, a problem that database apps don't happen to have. In fact, they tend to complicate things and can easily get in the way. Classes have little or nothing to do with the classic code patterns that sit on top of relational databases. If your DB is well-designed, the biz logic you code will be details in those loops or pass-throughs, but those two patterns will dominate.Īn OODMS on the other hand, from the point of view of this "old curmudgeon", attempts to recast the perfectly and efficiently functional RDBMS into something that will work with classes/objects, for no discernible gain over a system that has proven itself for decades to work extremely well. The code for classic relational apps tends to follow very predictable patterns, lots of loops over retrieved rows from tables, or straight pass-through stuff: passing data up to the UI or down to the database. ![]() Disclaimer: this is an "old curmudgeon" answer, from a guy who wrote plenty of perfectly functional accounting, manufacturing and other code before OOP came into the mainstream.įactory management is classic relational database stuff, it's what it was invented to do. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |