Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!pacbell!rtech!menace!dennism
From: dennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore (x2435, 1080-276) INGRES/teamwork)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Extended RDB vs OODB
Summary: OOPS, CASE mistake
Keywords: CASE OODB
Message-ID: <3324@rtech.rtech.com>
Date: 9 Aug 89 17:13:28 GMT
References: <3560052@wdl1.UUCP> <408@odi.ODI.COM>
Sender: news@rtech.rtech.com
Reply-To: dennism@menace.UUCP (Dennis Moore (x2435, 1080-276) INGRES/teamwork)
Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. (Opinions expressed are the writers own)
Lines: 53

In article 3386, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:

||In article <3560052@wdl1.UUCP> mitchell@wdl1.UUCP (Jo Mitchell) writes:
||
||For those of us who are interested in CAD/CAM, CASE applications ...
||
||After watching the oodb action and "extended" rdb action for awhile I'm
||of the opinion that all the extended rdb's will eventually turn into an
||oodb (at least at the conceptual level).
||
||Because of this it seems most application developers will decide to "convert"
||via the route with the least slope - by staying with an evolving rdb... 
||
||Comments?
|
|Many CAD and CASE applications currently don't use any existing DBMS,
|relational or otherwise.  Or if they do, they only use it at a high
|level of granularity, or for peripheral functions.  Few or none of
|them use a relational DBMS to store, say, individual transistors, or
|whatever are the small elements in which the program primarily deals.
|Since they're not using a relational DBMS now, there's no issue of
|"staying with an evolving rdb".
|
|Dan Weinreb		Object Design, Inc.		dlw@odi.com

This is common disinformation that OODB companies have been spreading in
an attempt to generate a "need" for their product.  Most CASE companies
use RELATIONAL databases at the hearts of their products.  For instance,
Cadre (teamwork) have used a number of commercial databases on different
platforms, and are forging a MUCH CLOSER relationship with my company (RTI).
IDE (Software through Pictures) uses an in-house RDBMS called TROLL, and are
forging a MUCH CLOSER relationship with Sybase.

Many databases have substantial object-oriented features;  many of these
databases are traditional RDBMSs.  There is no exclusivity between OO- and
R- DBMSs.  For instance, INGRES (from RTI, my company) has stored database
procedures and an object-oriented dictionary in the current product.  We
have announced at our users' convention that we will have rules (i.e. when
something happens to data, perform some action), triggers, alerters, and
substantial OO constructs in our 4GL.  These features will improve our
usability in several types of applications: data dictionaries
(CASE/CAD/CAM/CAE/etc.), computer integrated manufacturing (CIM), expert
systems, and others.

I suggest that we will have all these object oriented features before these
OODBMS companies have distributed database, development tools, bug elimination,
installed base, customer-driven features, third party developers, high
performance, and all the other things we expect for our $2K per user.

Dennis Moore, my own opinions etc etc etc

NOTE:  this was not intended as a commercial endorsement;  I merely used the
examples I know best.