The world rejoiced as decibel@decibel.org ("Jim C. Nasby") wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 06:56:01AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> >Is it really an important area to improve, or are there other
>> >priorities? I know some people wished we had better support for
>> >inheritance, but how strong is that wish?
>
> FWIW, I think people might be more likely to use the OO features
> that PostgreSQL already has if there was better OO support in one or
> more of the languages. Oracle has some support along these lines and
> it was nice being able to make use of it the last time I used
> Oracle. I don't remember the exact details, and I don't think
> they're necessarily the way you'd want to do it in PostgreSQL
> anyway, but it was nice being able to do things like expose a
> type/class that knew how to pull info from the database as well as
> store it there.
What is there, really, to add?
"Object Orientation" is all about the notion of having data that is
aware of its type, and where there can be a dispatching of methods
against those types.
There is already a perfectly functional ability to dispatch based on
argument types.
These essentials are there.
The things beyond the essentials are extras that there is great
difficulty in agreeing on.
- Blind fans of the C++ language model think that OO implies certain things;
- Blind fans of the Java language model think that OO implies a different certain set of things;
- Ditto for Smalltalk, Python, and Perl;
- Usually fans of CLOS are pretty open-minded because it is a UNION of a goodly number of object models...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "cbbrowne.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/slony.html
I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that.
Why don't you lie down and take a stress pill?
