OOFS -- Transactional or Transparent
Fri, 9 May 1997 12:13:43 -0700
Bill House [firstname.lastname@example.org], wrote:
;; This is an issue that I think bears its own thread.
;; The transparent support described by Adam Alpern is very intriguing, but I
Wait a minute - PLEASE don't misattribute me on this issue.
Chris Bitmead has been arguing for a transparent object store. I have
not. I have been arguing that MOST of an application does not need to
know about the issue. Only the small part that deals with persistence
neesd to know about it.
Mostly I've been arguing against Chris's slightly skewed world view
that he seems to think it's impossible to keep a clean separation of
portable and non-portable code when you have a persistent store.
;; wonder how practical it would be for real-world applications (and I say this
;; without ever actually used such a system, so my wonderment is only natural). In
;; my experience, performance and application issues would seem to argue against
;; having the system decide when and where to store objects for me on its own --
I completely agree.
;; Bill House
- Adam Alpern