> This is funny, because there is a non-unsizeable camp in > the OO world that would just love to ignore databases and > serialize all their objects and their data. Yum yum.
My argument isn't for or against object serialization, it's an argument against storing serialized objects (denormalized data) in a relational database. If you build "fixed" objects (that is, if you set a list of what the properties of your objects may be), you can build object-relational mappings pretty easily. You'd typically use EJB components for this in a Java web application, I suppose. And, if you're using an OO language, there's a greater appeal to the idea of object serialization. You might not use a relational database at all. However, if you're going to use a relational database, you're usually best served by using it in the way in which it performs best. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Why Share? Dedicated Win 2000 Server � PIII 800 / 256 MB RAM / 40 GB HD / 20 GB MO/XFER Instant Activation � $99/Month � Free Setup http://www.pennyhost.com/redirect.cfm?adcode=coldfusionc FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
