Very good. Thanks!

I wasn't sure if the storage was heirarchical or otherwise. Haven't had time to read all the code.

--Richard




On 2003.06.09 13:48 "Smith, Todd" wrote:
Hello Richard,

An in-depth discussion is probably out of my league but I can give you
what
I have read and what seems reasonable to me.  M as a language includes
many
features that have a synergy with object storage.  The enhanced
hierarchical
data model that is a common feature of M systems bears a striking
resemblance to many object-data mappings that I have seen.  The string
type
in M is flexible enough to handle XML very well and coupled with an
excellent data model that maps more closely then most relational
systems to
XML.  These are some of the features that allow software written in M
to be
still very useful after almost 30 years.

David Forslund's original posting was about the availability of
open-source
high performance scalable OODBMS. Some of the projects on SourceForge
didn't
meet his requirements, so I suggested a product that I felt might be
able to
handle his needs.  The OODMBS features of Sanchez Associates GT.M are
documented on their website and seem (at least to me) that it is their
implementation and not the intrinsic features of the language itself.

Todd Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>From: Richard Schilling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I may have missed something about GT.M.
>
>What makes it a good OODBMS exactly?  Didn't think MUMPS was designed

>around OODBMS concepts.





Reply via email to