barcode generator dll c# THE ROLE OF THE TRADE PRESS IN EDUCATING THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY in Font

Painting Denso QR Bar Code in Font THE ROLE OF THE TRADE PRESS IN EDUCATING THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY

words, a domain and an object class are the same thing! In my opinion, therefore, domains are the key to achieving our desirable goal. A relational system that implemented domains properly would be able to do all of the things that OO advocates claim that OO systems can do and relational systems cannot. Thus, criticisms of relational from OO advocates may well be accurate if they are taken as criticisms of today s products, but they are NOT accurate if they are taken as criticisms of the potential of the technology. To sum up: Relational vendors should do all in their power to extend their systems to include proper domain support. Indeed, an argument can be made that the whole reason we are getting into this somewhat nonproductive debate on the relative merits of OO and relational is precisely because the relational vendors have failed so far to support the relational model adequately. But this fact should not be seen as an argument for abandoning relational entirely. It would be a great shame to walk away from the experience gained from over 20 years of solid relational research and development.

Edited version of the paper shown in Exhibit A as published in Computerworld ( A Fruitful Union, by C. J. Date, June 14th, 1993): Where is database technology headed Some pundits have predicted the imminent demise of relational databases. They claim today s relational systems are just too simplistic for the complex databases we need in the 1990s and have jumped with both feet onto the object-oriented bandwagon. The world is much too complex to be represented in flat relational tables is a typical claim heard from this camp. On the other hand, relational advocates have been defending their position stoutly, arguing the importance of relational s solid theoretical foundation and pointing out that in certain respects, object-oriented technology represents a giant step backward. Well, I have some good news: We can have our cake and eat it, too! The point is to marry the two technologies instead of throwing mud at each other. When I talk of marrying the technologies, I mean we should try to extend relational systems to incorporate the good features of object orientation and shun the bad. Let me stress that I am talking about a marriage of technologies, not of products. I am not pretending a clean integration between object-oriented product X and relational product Y is a simple matter or even achievable or a good thing. So how are we to meet this desirable goal By looking for what the two have in common. The fundamental construct in object-oriented systems is the object class, which is (in general) a user-defined, encapsulated data type of arbitrary internal complexity. (Note: I use the term data type here in the sense in which that term is understood in modern programming languages. In particular, it means only certain operators, whose definitions are provided by the users, can manipulate instances of the data type in question. I am not referring just to primitive, systemdefined, built-in data types such as Integer and Char.) In relational systems, the fundamental construct is the domain, which for the most part is not implemented in today s relational products. In general, a domain is a user-defined, encapsulated data type of arbitrary internal complexity i.e., a domain and an object class are the same. In my opinion, therefore, domains are the key to achieving our desirable goal. A relational system that implements domains properly would be able to do all of the things that objectoriented advocates claim that object-oriented systems can do and relational systems cannot. Thus, criticisms of relational from object-oriented advocates may well be accurate if they are