Re: [SQLObject] Join tables

[Luke O. <lu...@me...>]

>
> Superset mapping used, I hardly notice the time taken to retrieve an
> object. That's why we use SQL and databases, and with the world virtually
> stuck on OO, that's the future.
>
> At the end of the day, if you think we shouldn't use a database to store
> OO, then perhaps we should all write in PL/SQL ;-)

I don't really need to fuel this argument, I happen to be in the "relational
calculus is able to represent all my data" camp (Yes, CJ Date writes my
nighttime prayers :) But there's no reason why we need to agree on this, from
what's been discussed so far as functionality for SQLObject, go for it.

Just need to realize, those of us who are using SQLObject as a "mapping from
rtables to objects, not objects to tables" aren't going to be on the front
edge of adding these changes. Although there are still lots of places where
we'll have the same desires (more featureful existing Joins for instance) and
more eyes on the code etc.

- Luke

p.s. I'm not trying to say your modelling is "not relational". If you
understand Date's problems with people tossing around "it's OO, no need for
relational data anymore" then you understand me too. But you seem to be more
grounded than most OO proponents, so it's probably just a visceral reaction on
my part. But it's not really an argument for this list, nor an argument that
tends to convert either side. :)