Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!paralogics!shaw
From: shaw@paralogics.UUCP (Guy Shaw)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: pointer swizzling
Keywords: seamless integration, pointer swizzling, OODB, persistent objects
Message-ID: <244@paralogics.UUCP>
Date: 8 Sep 89 20:33:20 GMT
Organization: Paralogics; Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 30


And now, for something completely different.

In article ,
dcmartin@lisp.eng.sun.com (David C. Martin) writes:

> It would be nice if no one ever had to consider if a pointer was persistent
> or non-persistent, but someone will have to build the access methods and
> other low-level interface routines to your storage manager in order to
> provide this type of "pointer swizzling" to the application developer.

"pointer swizzling".  Oh, I like it.  It has a nice ring to it.
This article was the first I had seen of that usage.
Is it already known among OODB cognoscenti, or did David Martin just
coin a new sniglet of usage?  If he did, it seems to have been done
very successfully.  Several articles since, in this thread, have
picked up on it, at first in quotation marks, then without, all as natural
as can be.

Offhand, it just looks like one of those times when a concise word was
needed for the concept being discussed, and none yet existed.
Fortunately, we didn't get stuck with some ten dollar word, where
a concise and informal word will do, for now.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled OODBMS vs. RDBMS debates.
-- 
--
Guy Shaw
Paralogics
paralogics!shaw@uunet.uu.net  or  uunet!paralogics!shaw