From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rob Napier <rob(at)doitonce(dot)net(dot)au>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement! |
Date: | 2012-08-09 17:22:32 |
Message-ID: | 1344532952.18800.20.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 20:15 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> I wonder if it is time to re-examine the term object-relational and
> how we explain it.
+1.
My first suggestion to consider removing the word "object" fell flat,
but I think improving the documentation around that term would help
avoid confusion (including my confusion).
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1335420139.28653.59.camel@jdavis
Based on that thread, it seems to have something to do with
extensibility, user-defined data types, polymorphism, and overloading.
But those things seem to matter only to extension authors, so I can't
think of a way to usefully describe object-relational to new users
(aside: those we call "users" are actually developers, so they will
expect that any object-relational features are intended for them).
The only object-relational things that a new user will see are the
things I mentioned in the email linked above: OIDs, inheritance, and dot
function call syntax. And I can't think of a way to describe those
things in a way that would connect with new users, either.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alejandro Carrillo | 2012-08-09 17:56:44 | I wish be the Colombia's Regional Contact |
Previous Message | Chris Travers | 2012-08-08 03:45:51 | Re: Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement! |