Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Any APIs?

Re: Any APIs?

From: Karen <abvk_at_ureach.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:57:36 GMT
Message-ID: <3D291B7B.88B29894@ureach.com>


> That doesn't get rid of anything, except a SID_LIST in Listener.ora. You
> still need a Listener.Ora to tell the Listener what name it should have and
> what port it should listen on -unless you are happy to accept the defaults,
> which are severely restrictive for most practical purposes.

Defaults are restrictive, but in many cases they are sufficient. In case you are
not expecting the listener to do too much work, your host could run with just a default listener and all databases can be autoconfigured. This in a perfect world,
of course, I am not actually recommending to run the listener on 1521 and use dynamic registration.

>
> >
> > Oracle Names is a much better alternative to tnsnames,
>
> This statement just isn't true. Oracle Names is actually going to be
> de-supported (yup, it's *that* much better than tnsnames), and in the
> meantime it is only doing what tnsnames.ora does, but on a larger scale. The
> magic point being the words 'larger scale'. When you've a couple of dozen
> clients to configure, automated distribution of tnsnames to PCs is probably
> far easier than building a Names infrastructure. Beyond that number, Names
> or similar LDAP-compliant technologies have compelling management advances,
> true. But Oracle nowehere promotes Names as a 'preferred' solution, and
> tnsnames as a 'deprecated' one. They each have their niches.

I do not like the idea of distributing tnsnames on client machines or workstations even
if it looks simple and can be automated. Your tnsnames files will be getting bigger as
the new databases are created, and you may have to replace all files on all clients after
any change to any service name, or keep track of which clients need which services.

Also, clients are allowed to make their own copies of tnsnames files, and if they do,
you cannot keep track of them.

>
> >just like DNS is an
> > alternative to /etc/hosts.
>
> Precisely. I don't see /etc/hosts going anywhere soon, do you? And why not,
> indeed? For a dozen PCs, hosts is a perfectly reasonable solution, and
> no-one would seriously suggest that anyone was "trying to get rid of it".
> Horses for courses.
>
> HJR
Of course not, but I would rather use DNS for clients as well, possibly leaving /etc/hosts
as a backup resolution method. Same could apply to Names or other dynamic resolution
method in Oracle and tnsnames. Received on Sun Jul 07 2002 - 23:57:36 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US