Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!odi!valens!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Extended RDB vs OODB
Message-ID: <408@odi.ODI.COM>
Date: 8 Aug 89 20:12:54 GMT
References: <3560052@wdl1.UUCP>
Sender: news@odi.com
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: mitchell@wdl1.UUCP's message of 2 Aug 89 20:30:38 GMT

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