Rick wrote: > I think one of the reasons that relational databases are popular as > compared to other solutions is that they map well to the theoretical > tools, such as relational algebra/calculus. > My problem is that relational databases map to most of the theory only in theory. E.g. SQL does not map to relational algebra, it is more a "Based upon a true story" type of thing. I've done this rant a few types before (including on this forum), but one of the things I really miss is a true implementation of the relational algebra, which includes having a proper notion of domains (which could easily be mapped to OO-classes). > For an upcoming e-commerce project I suggested trying out couchDB (as > promoted by the posse) and sCouchDB (the Scala version of same?).... > and a friend with an architectural leaning asked something along the > lines of: > > "but can you guarantee atomicity?" > > which shut me up pretty quickly. > I believe the ACID vs. BASE question will become more dominant in the near future, though. I am somehow afraid that many project will pick the BASE option when they really need ACID. > Disclaimer: I'm a fan of EJB 3.0 I've used only JPA, which is really not too bad. They certainly seem to have learned from the experiences of other products in the area, which is unfortunately not that common with these standards. You still need to like ORM to like EJB3, though :-) I just find the ORM idea to be too much of a neither here nor there thing.
Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
