Database options was (Re: My first Magma experience ...)

Marten Feldtmann m.feldtmann at t-online.de
Sun Apr 3 18:55:40 UTC 2005


Cees de Groot schrieb:

> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:41:20 -0600, Jimmie Houchin 
> <jhouchin at cableone.net>  wrote:
>
>> It seems that for productions sites with larger database needs that  
>> Relational databases are currently preferred. At least this is how I  
>> interpret what I've read. Please feel free to correct.
>>
> I disagree. I put the cut only w.r.t. the complexity of the domain 
> model.  Simple domain model -> relational; complex domain model -> 
> OODB. No matter  what people say, there's a chasm between the OO and 
> relational models and  it will hurt your ability to create a flexible 
> domain model, which IMNSHO  is one of the most important things about 
> any moderately complex app.


 No question about this but RDBMS offers lots of possible solutions. Go with
embedded solutions (using SQLite or Firebird), use costless solutions like
PostgreSQL or Firebird or Ingres for mutli-user solutions and end up with
global players like SQLServer, DB2, Oracle, Informix.

 There's a gap between OO tools and RDBMS - no question about this. 
Developers
have to accept this - or go with their own solutions using a very special
database with all their advantages and disadvantages.

 If I hear about solutions for customers based on OODBMS I ask myself, 
if this
is a solution which meets the developers need or the customers need. In the
first step, the customer gets a solution - but it's very often a closed
application.

 Smalltalkers seems to have more problems with that than other developers
in Java (JDBC) or Delphi or .NET - one of the reason can be, that Smalltalk
did not have the frameworks one should have, when working with RDBMS. This
is (in my opinion) true for VW, VA and other Smalltalk systems. Knowing
this I can understand why Smalltalk system do not like to be compared
against MS Access, Visual dBase - these so often called less powerful
solutions can produce applications (reports, data management), which
meets more the expectations of the customer, than Smalltalk system can
offer today: problems like reports, automated generated input/output
forms are not the hot items, the Smalltalk community likes to talk
about.

 The sentence above concerning "larger databases" is sometimes really true.
In larger companes you very often have special database adminstrators and
these database administrators are very important in that IT structure.

 If you able to offer your solution in his database, then you have a new
friend - when offering your solution. When offering solutions using
other global players, he will not be happy - but he will accept this.

 Using PostgreSQL (or stuff like this ...) you will get problems - offering
solutions only based on (more or less closed) OODBMS you might get into
really trouble ....

 GLORP is a nice sunshine in this world, but it's only a start ....

 Marten

 



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list