Since we're talking about databases...

Tue Feb 2 23:46:11 GMT 1999

Please please please let this list not degenerate into a philosophical debate about the merits of various approaches to database design. I have been following the relational vs. object vs. object-relational debate for some ten years now, and the mere mention of Dr. Stonebraker's name still makes me shiver. :-)

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xml-dev at ic.ac.uk [mailto:owner-xml-dev at ic.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
len bullard
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 3:30 PM
To: xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Since we're talking about databases...

Take a look at the papers of Dr. Michael Stonebraker (www.informix.com)
on the design of relational databases with object support designed 
into the kernel which enable user-defined extensions, support for 
complex types, etc.  His claim is that this approach is the new 
generation of db.

He posits arguments and figures for the performance of this 
approach over middleware that might be interesting.  I find 
myself wondering about how this approach would work if 
XML support were built into the kernel.  Stonebraker posits 
it would be far superior for 3D.  Since we have some 
experience with geodata and the performance problems of keeping 
this in the relational db (not the way to go), 
I wonder if architectural issues with XML systems that 
rely on middleware will be similar.

len bullard

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)