Re: object relational database versus "inteligent" serialization
Lew wrote:
coding and a pedagogical perspective. Your "item entity" example has a
constructor that calls 'super()' although the type descends directly
from 'Object' and 'super()' is called regardless.
luc peuvrier wrote:
Java good practise say to call super, and PMD I use warning if missing
Nope. Terrible practice. Stupid to call 'super()' when it happens anyway.
PMD obviously a piece of crap.
Lew:
It uses 'float' to
represent a monetary amount. One might argue that it's "just" an
example, but that lack of attention to detail in the visible example
makes one worry whether you pay enough attention in the library code.
luc
Logic ! If I use a float for a monetary amount, who can imagine I can
write a quality code !
Precisely.
just between us, after 30 years of programming I have never handled
monetary data: surprise, right?
I am really happy to learn than float is not proper.
Think about the reasons why.
Lew:
The far more serious flaws with the joafip library are that it recreates
the ancient network database model, where all the data relations are
predefined,
luc:
Yes,but: relations between object are coded in class, a fixed data
model.
I do not know that serialize this fixed data model is the ancient
network database model...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_model_(database)>
Lew:
that it imposes a lot of data-storage-aware code on core
luc:
that is not the case with joafip: the data model is managed as a graph
replicated on a file. This is the most important joafip feature.
The examples in your project contradict that assertion.
luc:
in short, joafip as a database solution is under ancle of existing
framework, I confirm, but why a truck to move an eggs ?
Sorry? Your meaning could not be less clear.
How do you think eggs get to the supermarket, by fairy wand?
--
Lew