4 ms·

Objects should definitely just be an abstraction of the data, but I'm not sure where your specific requirement for a relational model comes from.

• TweedHeads 18y ago
  Codd did his job very well when he set the model 40 years ago based on set theory and predicate logic. It has to do with atomicity, redundancy, validity and integrity of data. Any object you can imagine can be decomposed in atomic parts that can be stored individually with their respective relations to each other.
  • jrockway 18y ago
    Any object you can imagine can be decomposed in atomic parts that can be stored individually with their respective relations to each other. Uh, yes? What makes you think that this isn't how an OODB works? Generally, each object is stored as a graph of its dependencies. (A class has attributes, and an instance of a class is a collection of instances representing these attributes. This is what's stored in the database... and in memory, for that matter.) Codd did his job very well when he set the model 40 years ago based on set theory and predicate logic. It has to do with atomicity, redundancy, validity and integrity of data. Care to go into more detail here? Nothing you say has much to do with object databases -- they can be fully ACID, they store objects that are the same in memory as the same object in the database, and they don't magically make a consistent memory image inconsistent. As long as your in-memory data makes sense, the data in your object database will make sense. If your in-memory data doesn't make sense, then who cares what's stored? You corrupted your data a long time ago, and no set theory is going to fix that.