dennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore (x2435, 1080-276) INGRES/teamwork) (08/15/89)
In article 3427, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes: *In article <3324@rtech.rtech.com> dennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore (x2435, 1080-276) INGRES/teamwork) writes: * * |Many CAD and CASE applications currently don't use any existing DBMS, * |relational or otherwise. Or if they do, they only use it at a high * |level of granularity, or for peripheral functions. Few or none of * |them use a relational DBMS to store, say, individual transistors, or * |whatever are the small elements in which the program primarily deals. * |Since they're not using a relational DBMS now, there's no issue of * |"staying with an evolving rdb". * * This is common disinformation that OODB companies have been spreading in * an attempt to generate a "need" for their product. * *If you intend to use comp.databases as a forum for insult and *invective rather than information and discussion, I won't continue to *reply to your postings. * * Most CASE companies * use RELATIONAL databases at the hearts of their products. For instance, * Cadre (teamwork) have used a number of commercial databases on different * platforms, and are forging a MUCH CLOSER relationship with my company *(RTI). * IDE (Software through Pictures) uses an in-house RDBMS called TROLL, and *are * forging a MUCH CLOSER relationship with Sybase. * *I stand by my statement, above. The largest U.S. CASE company, Index *Technologies, does not use any DBMS in its product. They have Dan, your posting bugged me, so I researched it. Perhaps you could get a spokesman for INDEX to comment. In the July 24th 1989 issue of "Digital Review," page 38, a product matrix indicates that INDEX contains an internal *R*DBMS (note: RDBMS, not DBMS). I spoke with the author of the article, who claimed that the matrix was derived from product literature and conversations with the companies. Are INDEX liars or are you just prone to hyperbole? Before you flame, let me just state that an INDEX ad I have right in front of me says that INDEX uses an internal RDBMS to store dictionary objects. Comments, Dan? -- Dennis Moore, my own opinions, etc.
dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) (08/17/89)
In article <3360@rtech.rtech.com> dennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore (x2435, 1080-276) INGRES/teamwork) writes:
In the July 24th 1989 issue of "Digital
Review," page 38, a product matrix indicates that INDEX contains an
internal *R*DBMS (note: RDBMS, not DBMS). I spoke with the author of the
article, who claimed that the matrix was derived from product literature and
conversations with the companies.
Unfortunately, my direct knowledge of the feelings of people at Index
Technology come from discussions made under non-disclosure agreements.
However, Index has recently announced publicly their intention to get
involved with Ontologic. I don't remember the precise contents of
their announcement, and should not risk misquoting them by guessing.
However, I think they specifically stated that they intend to use
Ontologic's forthcoming OODB product in their next generation of CASE
tools. Anyone who is interested should find a copy of their press
release and check it more carefully.
Here's one interesting public statement that I can report.
Burt Rubenstein, VP and co-founder of Index Technologies, was speaking
at the Second International Workshop on CASE, on July 13, 1988, at
about 10:00 a.m. (It's important to be very specific with facts, you
know. I'm not precisely sure of Rubenstein's precise title, but it is
something similar to "VP of Technology" or "VP of R&D". If you find
that his title is something else, I'm sure you'll correct me. In this
particular session of the workshop, Rubenstein was summarizing general
conclusions. He recalled that one of the conclusions from the First
International Workshop was: "Object-oriented database systems will be
replacing relational database systems in CASE software over the next
five years or so." (Just in case you happened to be there with a tape
recorder, I supposed I had better point out that this may not be an
exact, word-for-word quote, but it is very close to one, and does not
distort the meaning in any way.)
You can decide for yourself the extent to which he is speaking for
himself, for speaking for his company, or saying what he thinks many
other people think. He did not elaborate on the point at that
particular time.
I will go out on a limb and repeat a statement that I was told by a
senior Index Technology technical manager, while I was in a
non-disclosure meeting at Index's offices. I don't think they'll
mind, and if they do I apologize. We asked what database technology
they use in their present products. He named a particular B-tree
package; it's one of the ones that's often advertised in magazines,
and you see it mentioned in comp.databases from time to time. He said
"That's all we use. There is very little database technology in our
existing product."
I don't know how to reconcile this with the article you saw in Digital
Review. I can suggest one possibility: there is no completely
universally applied litmus test as to what constitutes a "relational
database managegment system" and what does not. It may simply be a
matter of interpretation. You'll have to decide for yourself whether
the Digital Review article should be read to imply, for example, that
there is a non-procedural query languages such as SQL or QUEL
happening somewhere in the existing Index Technology product. I don't
think anyone was lying at any point at all; rather, I think that the
accepted standards for what the question "do you use a relational
database" means are generally very broad, and in this case there is a
valid sense in which the answer is "yes" and also a valid sense in
which the answer is "no". And perhaps there is some other explanation
of the discrepancy.
Rather than worry about it, however, it would be more worthwhile to
explore the real interesting technical heart of the matter: what are
these so-called OODB's, and why does anyone think they're good, and
for what specific purposes do they claim to be well-suited? I expect
to address these points further in future postings, since it seems as
if there's at least a noticable number of people reading
comp.databases who are interested in these questions.
Dan Weinreb Object Design, Inc. dlw@odi.com