Persistent Object Systems and Interoperability: Linguistic and Architectural Requirements

  • Kazimierz Subieta
Conference paper
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)

Abstract

An important aspect of currently developed persistent object systems is support for interoperability with other systems. A central issue in supporting interoperability is achieving type compatibility. We argue that abstraction is also a key interoperability issue. The level of abstraction depends on such features as modularity, encapsulation, orthogonality, minimality, clean and precise semantics, universality, extensibility, type safety and genericity, and others. In the paper we discuss these concepts and some architectures of gateways.

Keywords

Beach Stein Encapsulation Clarification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Atkinson. Questioning Persistent Types. Proc. 2nd DBPL Workshop, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, 1989Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Atkinson, F. Bancilhon, D. DeWitt, K. Dittrich, D. Maier, and S. Zdonik. The Object-Oriented Database System Manifesto. Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. on Deductive and Object Oriented Databases, Kyoto, 1989, pp. 40–57Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M.P. Atkinson. Persistent Foundations for Scalable Multi-paradigmal Systems. FIDE2i ESPRIT BRA Project 6309, Technical Report Series, FIDE/92/51, 1992. (Proc. Intl. Workshop on Distributed Object Management, Edmonton, Canada, Aug.1992, Morgan Kaufmann, 1992 )Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. Batini, S. Ceri, S.B. Navathe. Conceptual Database Design, An Entity-Relationship Approach. Benjamin/Cummings 1992MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    P.A. Bernstein, P.O. Gyllstrom, T. Wimberg. STDL—A Portable Language for Transaction Processing. Proc. 19th VLDB Conf., Dublin, Ireland, 1993, pp. 218–229Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Bever, K. Geihs, L. Heuser, M. Mühlhäuser, A. Schill. Distributed Systems, OSF DCE and Beyond. Proc. Intl. DCE Workshop, Karlsruhe, Germany, Oct. 1993. Springer LNCS 731, 1993, pp. 1–20Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Bishop, E. Wasiolek. The Big Picture. Ingres Release 6.0. Relational Technology Inc. 1 /90, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Butterworth, A. Otis, J. Stein. The GemStone Object Database Management System. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 10, Oct.1991, pp. 64–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    M.J. Carey, D.J.DeWitt, S.L. Vandenberg. A Data Model and Query Language for EXODUS. Proc. ACM SIGMOD Conf., 1988, pp. 413–423Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Chatterjee, A. Segev. Data Manipulation in Heterogeneous Databases. ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1991, pp. 64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    C.J. Date. Where SQL Falls Short. Datamation, May 1, 1987Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    U. Dayal. Query Processing in a Multidatabase System. (In) Query Processing in Database Systems, Springer, New York 1985, pp. 81–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    U. Dayal. Queries and Views in an Object-Oriented Data Model. Proc. 2nd. DBPL Workshop, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, 1989, pp. 80–102Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Gray. Where Is Transaction Processing Headed? OTM Spectrum Reports, Vol.7, Report 2, May 1993, pp. 14–19Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Application Editor User’s Guide for INGRES/Windows 4GL for the UNIX and VMS Operating Systems. Language Reference Manual for INGRES/Windows 4GL for the UNIX and VMS Operating Systems. INGRES Release 6, Ingres Corporation, August 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    W. Kent. The Breakdown of the Information Model in Multi-Database Systems. ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1991, pp. 10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    C.W. Krueger. Software Reuse. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1992, pp. 131–184MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    W. Litwin, A. Abdellatif. Multidatabase Interoperability. IEEE Computing, Vol. 19, No. 12, Dec.1986, pp. 10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    W. Litwin, L. Mark, N. Roussopoulos. Interoperability of Multiple Autonomous Databases. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol.22, No.3, 1990, pp.267–293Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    F. Manola, S. Heiler An Approach to Interoperable Object Models. Unpublished Report, 1992Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    F. Matthes, J.W. Schmidt. Bulk Types: Built-In or Add-On. Proc. 3rd Intl. Workshop on Database Programming Languages, Nafplion, Greece, Morgan Kaufmann, September 1991Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    F. Matthes, A. Rudloff, J.W. Schmidt, K. Subieta. A Gateway from a DBPL to INGRES: Modula-2, DBPL, SQL+C, INGRES. FIDE2i ESPRIT BRA PROJECT 6309 Technical Report Series FIDE/92/54, 1992Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    F. Matthes, A. Rudloff, J.W. Schmidt, K. Subieta. A Gateway from DBPL to Ingres. Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. on Applications of Databases, Vadstena, Sweden, 1994Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    M.-A. Neimat, M.-C. Shan. Database Research at HP Labs. ACM SIG-MOD Record, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1991, pp. 92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    The 02 User Manual, Version 4.1. 02 Technology, Versailles, France, October 1992Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    OTM Spectrum Reports. Open Transaction Management - Strategies for multi-platform environments in 1990s., Vol.7, Reports 1–3, (Available from Spectrum Reports, Inc., PO Box 301368, Escondido, CA 92030, USA)Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Objects and Transactions to Come Together? OTM Spectrum Reports, Vol.7, Report 3, August 1993, pp.15–20Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    H.-J. Schek, H.-B. Paul, M.H. Scholl, G. Weikum. The DASDBS Project: Objectives, Experiences, and Future Prospects. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Enginering, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1990, pp. 25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    J.W. Schmidt, F Matthes. The Database Programming Language DBPL, Rationale and Report. FIDE, ESPRIT BRA Project 3070, Technical Report Series, FIDE/92/46, 1992Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    J.W. Schmidt, F Matthes. Lean Languages and Models: Towards an Inter-operable Kernel for Persistent Object Systems. Proc. IEEE Intl. Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering RIDE `93 Vienna, Austria, April 19–20, 1993Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    A.P. Sheth, J.A. Larson. Federated Database Systems for Managing Distributed, Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Databases. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1990, pp. 183–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    M. Stonebraker, L.A. Rowe, B. Lindsay, J. Gray, M. Carey, M. Brodie, P. Bernstein, D. Beech. Third-Generation Data Base System Manifesto. ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1990, pp. 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    M. Stonebraker. Future Trends in Database Systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1989, pp. 33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    M. Stonebraker, L.A. Rowe, and M. Hirohama. The Implementation of POSTGRES. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1990, pp. 125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    M. Stonebraker, R. Agraval, U. Dayal, E.J. Neuhold, A. Reuter. DBMS Research at a Crossroad: the Vienna Update. Proc. 19th Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, Dublin, Ireland, August 1993, pp. 688–692Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    G. Thomas, G.R.Thompson, C.-W. Chung, E. Barkmeyer, F. Carter, M. Templeton, S. Fox, B. Hartman. Heterogeneous Distributed Database Systems for Production Use. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1990, pp. 237–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    J. Tibbets, B. Bernstein. Objects and transactions. OTM Spectrum Reports, Vol.7, Report 3, August 1993, pp. 21–26Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    J.C. Wilden, A.L. Wolf, W.R. Rosenblatt, P.L. Tarr. Specification-Level Interoperability. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 5, May 1991, pp. 72–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazimierz Subieta
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer SciencePolish Academy of SciencesWarszawaPoland

Personalised recommendations