Re: OO Patch

On Fri, 19 May 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 19 May 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> >
> >
> > > My take on the previous discussions were that a great number of
> > > objections were resolved. Am I supposed to just sit on my bum waiting
> > > for people who havn't even used an ODBMS to argue for a few years? I'm
> > > quite willing to talk this all through again but it needs to reach
> > > closure at some point.
> >
> > Nope, my take on things is that your patch does things that would break
> > existing functionality,
>
> IMHO it actually _fixes_ existing broken functionality .

Oops, sorry, mis-spell ... would should be could ...

>
> > which won't be permitted without one helluva good explanation ...
>
> Yes, that was The Hermit Hacker I fearfully referred to as misusing even
> the current "OO" functionality when I warned people not to promote using
> any half-baked OO features developers have forgot into PostgreSQL when they
> converted a cool ORDBMS into a generlly usable (non-O)RDBMS.
>
> It may be time to fork the tree into OO and beancounting editions ?
> Especially so if the main tree will migrate to BDB ;-p
>
> OOPostgreSQL sounds quite nice ;)
>
> > > This is the third time I've submitted the patch and you examined it in
> > > detail last two times. This is just a post-7.0 merge and I was expecting
> > > it put in CVS now that 7.0 is done.
> >
> > That won't happen ... v7.1, if you can get agreement, but not in the
> > current CVS tree ...
>
> From where must he get that agreement ?

From more then two ppl? Actually, IMHO, it looks like alot of the problem
is not that we should improve our OO, but how to go about it. It appears
to me that the past thread that Chris started ended in a fashion that bred
misunderstanding ... Chris thought it was resolved, others thought it got
left hanging ...

What *I'd* like to see is that past thread re-picked up again ... I'm
going to take some time tonight to go through the archives and see if I
can pull out "the start of the thread", will post it, and see if we can
get some discussions going ...

v7.0 hasn't been BRANCHED yet, so it can't go into the tree yet, but if we
can take the next bit of time before it is BRANCHED to discuss it out and
reach some sort of consensus here ...

Chris, one quick question ... the last email I read from you stated a
bunch of things that you wanted to accomplish, but your patch only
addressed the first one. Can we focus on that and ignore the others? Do
it through step'ng stones? Or does each step only make sense in view of
the whole picture?