One complaint I have heard (but never verified) is that the OODBMS never got a good story for data evolution. Migrating your relational database schema to a new version is not always easy, but at least there are existing practices. Assuming that your object graph will always stay the same is probably not a good idea.
But I'd be happy to stand corrected. ORM can be a major pain. Peter Christian Catchpole wrote: > I think there are heaps of reasons including the ones you mention. > But I think the main thing is that dev's might like the idea of a > clean object DB, but in practice, the data held by an organization > does not (or should not) match the objects used by a program. And > this data shouldn't be tied to any one app. And relational people > will argue that most enterprise data suits a relational model more > than an OO one. > > Then there is the whole investment in DB technologies, admin, tuning, > reporting, backup, replication etc. > > I don't know much about OO databases so I can't say how they compare. > > On May 15, 6:12 am, Nico <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd like to hear the posse discuss why technologies such >> ashttp://www.db4o.com/ >> has not yet taken over from the traditional Relational Databases like >> Oralce, SQL Server, MySQL.. >> >> Is it because the technology is not mature enough or is it because of >> vested interest both political and monetary in large enterprises? >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
