Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!Germany.EU.net!donald!hasko
From: hasko@heeg.de (Hasko Heinecke)
Subject: Re: Persistent objects in RDBMS
Message-ID: <CxGnIL.2ns@heeg.de>
Organization: Georg Heeg Objektorientierte Systeme, Dortmund, FRG
References: <35b7om$9s7@panix.com> <35cmhc$rc@ams.amsinc.com> <35ga59$idf@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:13:33 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <35ga59$idf@panix.com> dsiegel@panix.com (David Siegel) writes:
>In <35cmhc$rc@ams.amsinc.com> mark_murphy@mail.amsinc.com (Mark Murphy) writes:
>
>>If DataLens, et. al. are not what you are looking for, I will be somewhat
>>surprised to hear of anything else closer that uses an RDBMS.
>
>Why?  It's clear that you can be more ambitious than the current version
>of DataLens -- ParcPlace's own documentation alludes to future enhancements.
>In particular, it should be possible to preserve polymorphic instance
>variables at the cost of not being able to retrieve data via simple joins.
>
>>If you are expecting an array of truly arbitrary objects
>>to be stored in a single table (like, say, BOSS can write to a file), you may be
>>disappointed.
>
>I'd expect each class to have a separate table, but I'd expect an instance
>variable to reference an object in one of many tables.

You'd need another table for every single object with a variable number of
inst vars, like Collections.

Hasko
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Hasko Heinecke speaking for myself only               |
| I _never_ mean what I say - and nobody else does...   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
