I don't think its a matter of 'taking over', as always, one size, does not fit all.
In the domain I'm currently working in, (Insurance) we have alot of product information which is fairly complex and needs to be maintained over a long period (a life insurance policy may exist for upwards of 40 years). As such, we have date which there are relatively few records (< 1 million) but high variance in structure. A traditional relational database is pretty poor at handling this, and curiously, the COBOL copybook approach with a non relational 'database' fits pretty well. The closest modern equivalent is probably XML. I'm not sure if an object oriented DB would help here, never looked into it, and by nature, we're fairly conservative at work. Unless such tech got a high penetration it would be unlikely to be selected. On May 14, 9:12 pm, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
