>Is there a lot of variance in OODB interfaces, such that implementing a general >OODBRepository would be prohibitive?
Yes. The Object Database Vendors tried about 3 years ago to come up with a standard, which I think was called ODMG, however they couldn't agree, and in some cases, significant differences existed between architectures that wouldn't allow for such a open standard. In in the case of Objectivity you're responsible for the physical storage of the objects in clusters of data, and it pulls down all of the database to the client over time. (If you want to know more, just ask.) This storage scheme apparently works excellent for super-colliders but not so great for small-medium applications... Clint -----Original Message----- From: Lavandowska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 6:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Proposal? Object Databases This is more of a question than anything: I recently attended a presentation on Object Databases. I've explored them in the past, but never seen such a clear demonstration of their strengths. In the spirit of "I've got a new hammer, what can I hit with it?", my questions are: given OODB's purported strengths will large sets of data, would JAMES benefit from supporting an OODB as the repository? Would this be an appropriate use of OODB? I've only looked at Ozone-db.org, but the interface to it looked significantly different than the presented Objectivity. Is there a lot of variance in OODB interfaces, such that implementing a general OODBRepository would be prohibitive? Thanks for you consideration. Lance __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
