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: Howard J. Rogers <dba_at_hjrdba.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:05:27 +1000
Message-ID: <agb6hk$pha$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>

"Karen" <abvk_at_ureach.com> wrote in message news:3D291B7B.88B29894_at_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.
>

I'm sorry Karen. We seem to be at cross-purposes. I know all the drawbacks of tnsnames. I know it isn't ideal in a constantly-changing environment. I agree with you on all of that. Where I take issue with you is your claim that Oracle is trying to get rid of tnsnames. It isn't. All its problems just mean that tnsnames is a horse for a certain course. But that course will always exist, and so (therefore) will tnsnames.

> >
> > >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.
>

OK, you have a date to come and implement a full-blown DNS for my study (comprising 3 PCs). Do you think that might be a bit of overkill?

My point is, I don't particularly care what your preferences are, or mine. You made a statement that Oracle were seeking to get rid of tnsnames and listner.ora. They aren't.

HJR
>
Received on Mon Jul 08 2002 - 00:05:27 CDT

Original text of this message

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