> Upper layers deal with higher abstractions (objects, rows, whatever)
Right, I'm waiting for standard for a level above relational databases which is Object-databases. I know there are several ones already and there are Object-Relational mapping layers.
I think the key point there is that Object databases are a level ABOVE relational databases. They are not "better" but they deal with the higher level of objects rather than "tables", just like relational databases can be seen to be are a level above key-value -stores.
I would like Object databases to become better and easier to use and more standardized.
I think there is value in being able to see both level, the objects, and the relational data that makes up the objects.
Neither objects nor relations are "above" the other. You can map them in a vacuous mathematical sense, but it's a massively leaky abstraction in either direction.
When I use the word "above" I mean "layers" of code. So if an Object-database was implemented by using a relational database, it would be "above" the layer of the RDBMs.
I think that is what object-to-relational mappers like Hibernate do.
I think it would seem quite natural to implement objects on top of, with the help of an RDBMS. But not sure if the opposite is true.
Right, I'm waiting for standard for a level above relational databases which is Object-databases. I know there are several ones already and there are Object-Relational mapping layers.
I think the key point there is that Object databases are a level ABOVE relational databases. They are not "better" but they deal with the higher level of objects rather than "tables", just like relational databases can be seen to be are a level above key-value -stores.
I would like Object databases to become better and easier to use and more standardized.
I think there is value in being able to see both level, the objects, and the relational data that makes up the objects.