Re: Bypassing SQLNet client side?

Most interesting.

I'm not sure I understand your statement about 'thin client is about 10% less performant than the "thick" drivers' No, I'm sure I don't understand. Does you mean there is a 10% performance PENALTY over "thick" drivers, or a 10% performance GAIN?

It would appear to me that if they have to bake this addressing information into their app, that I can't transparently relocate the database when the time comes ... such as when we do periodic server upgrades. Doesn't look like a good trade-off to me.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:00:43 GMT, "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-family_at_attbi.com> wrote:

>Mark is correct. One thing to note though is that the thin client is about
>10% less performant than the "thick" drivers.
>Jim
>"Mark Wagoner" <mwagoner_at_iac.net> wrote in message
>news:ajjn3f$2f93$1_at_genma.iac.net...
>> > From what I could tell from the GUI setup tool they showed me, it's
>using
>> a JDBC
>> > connection. I have zero experience with JDBC.
>> >
>> > Anyone have any experience with the Vitria product? Can anyone explain
>> what
>> > they think might be going on that it needs IP and listener port? Is
>there
>> some
>> > way of bypassing the client side SQLNET software?
>>
>> I have never heard of Vitria (but that doesn't mean much ;o)) but it
>sounds
>> like they are using the thin JDBC driver. This driver does not require an
>> Oracle client installation. All of the functionality normally handled by
>> the OCI dlls/libraries is coded in Java within the JDBC driver.
>>
>> When connecting to a database using the thin driver, you essentially pass
>> the entire tnsnames entry (IP address, port, SID/service name, etc.) to
>the
>> driver along with the username and password. This would explain why they
>> wanted this information, although I think you are correct in being leery
>> about just giving it out.
>>
>>
>
>

--
Ed Stevens
(Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)