thanks for the point.
Stef
On Jan 20, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
Hi, I strongly recommend NOT to use a relational database. It is a very bad solution for OO (for several reasons, the best example I read ever is: "is like disassemble your car every night before sleep, and reassemble it every morning, before going to work"). I worked with relational databases a lot and I can ensure that it is a pain in the a**. Yes, with Mariano we did SqueakDBX, but that was just because in lots of jobs the database is not an option, you must use a relational db (and usually oracle), not because we think it is good for programming. Of course, gemstone can be a better solution... but if we want scalability for free, a nosql solution here can be a good choice (and there are some implementations in pharo, to choose one)
btw...a document oriented database (like MongoDB, already implemented for Pharo) is a good approach for non-regular structures.
my 2c.
best, Esteban
El 20/01/2011, a las 8:22a.m., Stéphane Ducasse escribió:
in the past marco did a bridge to database for metadescribed but since famix was not regular we could not get famix models in databases. So I would be interested to know if there is an ongoing effort to do that? Because this would be a real plus for FameDescribed models. May be using Glorp and I was thinking that this would be good also to get all the source code of pharo in a db using Ring. And get Torch there too.
What do you hope to achieve by having these models in a relational database?
Query all the versions of a class. All the difference between to changeset over a stream of changes. We do not care about relational or not. But we should start somewhere.
Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev