Re: [Gnue-dev] Why the Object metaphor? (Was: Object-Relational Mapping?)

[Daniel E Baumann]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 09:04:02PM -0500, Neil Tiffin wrote:
> Jason,
> 
> At 12:17 PM -0600 1/18/03, Jason Cater wrote:
> >oranges. Why can't the underlying relational data be abstracted to a more
> >user-friendly level, but without the use of objects?
> 
> Please re-read my comments.
> 
> >At 6:00 AM -0500 1/17/03, Neil Tiffin wrote:
> >>On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 06:34:02PM -0500, Neil Tiffin wrote:
> >>> I think the goal should be a simple to understand method of modifying
> >>> the system behavior by non information systems professionals.  An
> >>> object model (implemented well) is easy to explain to someone who is
> >>> not up on the latest OODB vs relational issues.  One can talk about
> >>> purchase order objects, sales orders etc.  In the relational world it
> >>> real easy to lose the abstraction because of the need to normalize
> > data.
> 
> I said it is "easy to lose the abstraction".  That does not mean that 
> it is always done or that with the relational model abstraction is 
> impossible.  Sorry I ticked you off by using the term "Object Model" 
> instead of more properly calling it "Business Object Model"  or just 
> simply "Business Model" in the above paragraph.  Close reading of my 
> other comments should have given a clue as to my meaning but I did 
> mislead a bit.
> 
> In my experience, talking loosely about business objects is intuitive 
> and easy to understand for a lot more people than tables, rows, 
> columns, foreign keys, indexes, constraints, select statements and 
> etc.   This also not talking about software object model with methods 
> etc.
> 
> At 12:17 PM -0600 1/18/03, Jason Cater wrote:
> >real kicker of that statement is the jump from abstracting into objects,
> >to discussing why the low-level relational model is too complex for the
> >end user because of the need to normalize data. That's comparing apples to
> >oranges. Why can't the underlying relational data be abstracted to a more
> >user-friendly level, but without the use of objects?
> 
> The reason for the jump (apples to oranges) was because I was not 
> talking about just "discussing" but about modifying system behavior 
> (the first sentence of mine that you quoted).  You can not do that in 
> the non-abstracted SQL system without making the jump to the low 
> level relational model.  With an abstraction you should be able to 
> make certain and hopefully many types of modifications without making 
> the jump into the detail implementation model.
> 
> And referring to the above quote, I said nearly the exact same thing here:
> 
> >>At 6:00 AM -0500 1/17/03, Neil Tiffin wrote:
> >>> There is no question that the relational model is useful, well
> >>> understood, effective and may even be the best technical solution.
> >>>
> >>> But whatever you call it, I think an abstraction above the relational
> >>> database (or OODB) model is needed to make enterprise apps killer
> 
> I am not repeat NOT NOT saying that we need an technical or software 
> object model.  Simply the more the complexity is reduced for the user 
> and the more closely it resembles the business the more applicable 
> the solution will be to more users.  This is the abstraction i am 
> referring too.  And I referred to "may be the best technical 
> solution" because i am not arrogant enough to think that I know all 
> of the possible solutions, not because I think objects may be better.
> 
> At 12:17 PM -0600 1/18/03, Jason Cater wrote:
> >Now, to really play devil's advogate.  My accountants DON'T understand
> >object terminology. If I start discussing Purchase Order objects, I'm
> 
> Your accountant does understand business objects.  That is all they 
> really deal with.  I would agree that they probably don't understand 
> the object model, but that was not what I was referring too.  But if 
> you start discussion Purchase Orders they will understand.  The more 
> closely GNUE models the business world the more people will use it.
> 
> I don't know why you want to put me in the information system object 
> camp as I really don't care about the underlaying technology and 
> never have.  If you tell me what term is politically correct to use 
> to refer to a purchase order or other item that is commonly used in 
> business I will use that term instead of business object.  I want a 
> system that is simple to implement.
> 
> And sure, anybody can learn anything.  That does not mean they will, 
> or that there is not a better way.  Relational systems have been 
> around for a long time.  None have been implemented in a way that is 
> useful to small/medium businesses without a lot of technical 
> assistance (read that to mean modification complexity and maintenance 
> for adapting the system for the best strategic benefit to the 
> business organization as it changes over time) (unless of course, 
> they are not flexible, aka Quickbooks, MYOB etc which are probably 
> not relational anyway and certainly not modifiable.)
> 
> After having been paid to implement 50 to 80% of the same thing over 
> and over again there has to be a better way.  This common element 
> could be built into the abstraction layer because it can be reused. 
> I believe there should be a way to express this common stuff in a way 
> that more non-technical users can have access to it.  This also makes 
> it easier to use for technical folks.  I will continue to push in 
> this direction, for a system that hides the complexity and is easy to 
> use and understand.  If that is not the direction of GNUe, please let 
> me know and I will shut up.

Sorry to quote this whole thing, but the gist of what your saying has
nothing to do with the unerlying technology, right? However to design
such a system that is "user friendly" it is a lot easier to do UI in
objects. In fact, I have no idea whateversoever how anyone would
design a user inteface using the 'relational' model. It doesn't make
sense to me. In fact, most of the gui gnue tools use an OO widget
toolkit, but whatever. I think this whole OO v. relational thing is
getting pretty lame.

Dan
-- 
And if cynics ridicule freedom, ridicule community...if ``hard nosed 
realists'' say that profit is the only ideal...just ignore them, and use 
copyleft all the same.
      -- RMS

Was I helpful?  Let others know: 
  http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=chillywilly