Re: Oracle object-oriented database objects - opinions

Richard Kuhler <noone_at_nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<WK8%a.41$Wo1.25073_at_twister.socal.rr.com>...
> tk wrote:
> I would disagree pretty strongly that this is the "whole point" but I'll
> leave that for another discussion. I think you are vastly
> underestimating the complexity of "swapping out" the database. In
> reality, most companies have significant hurdles to overcome if they are
> going to switch from Oracle to whatever. I would certainly concede that
> having a large base of PL/SQL code would add tons to that effort as
> well. However, as much as I've heard people talk about switching
> databases, I have yet to see anyone do it with a major system. If you
> really have a requirement to be completely database independent then
> that pretty much eliminates PL/SQL (as well as a slew of other features)
> from your toolbag. Other than companies developing shrink-wrap software
> though, I can't see this being a real requirement very often.

Also companies that produce packages such as SAP, iRenaissance, etc. Of course, these vendors wind up having lowest-common-denominator issues, which enhances your point. However, there are companies that need an "easy" upgrade path for their stuff running on VMS or whatever. They get screwed up trying to make too big of a jump to another product on another platform 'cause they can't even get it to work, so they become sensitized to the idea of being able to switch underlying db's with the same product.

I think vendors like Oracle trying to lock customers into a db with too much proprietariness are making the same mistake any other vendors of propriety :-) have made in the past (with the possible exception of IBM big iron).

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Dang import.