At 12:36 PM 1/31/2002 -0500, Steve Downey wrote: >EJB also brings to the table all of the problems of the Object/Relational >impedance mismatch. It's an empirical fact at this point that rows in a >table are bad objects. They're data, and have no behavior. Turning them into >objects with container managed persistence doesn't make them good objects. >Objects are composed out of many rows spanning several tables. That's hard >to do with CMP. > >Just my $0.02.
Well, if EJB (or others) are doing it wrong, it doesn't mean that Object Relational approach is bad. I agree that objects mapped straight to the rows one to one are not of much use by themselves. But they provide something that you will need to build your less fine grained objects, namely *persistence transparency*. By the same token you can say that any objects that use Java Bean pattern are useless, since all they have is get and set methods. But well, some people may like to concatenate SQL strings every time they want to get some data written or read to/from the database. The keyword here is "productivity". ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- - Andrei (a.k.a. Andrus) Adamchik http://objectstyle.org list email: andrus-jk at objectstyle dot org personal email: andrus at objectstyle dot org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
