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: Java to die in 2003

Re: Java to die in 2003

From: Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: 31 Dec 2002 15:17:22 -0800
Message-ID: <91884734.0212311517.78cdcf90@posting.google.com>


"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<3e11bd8f$0$231$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com>...
> "Simon Lenn" <simonlenn_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3641e2c2.0212301945.1d3bdcec_at_posting.google.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I think the track as been lost. If the thread is clearly followed the
> > very fact Oracle supports Java stored procedures is to replace PL/SQL
> > it is clear very clear.
>
> It is certainly not clear to me. Java Stored Procedures would be appropriate
> when what you want to accomplish is beyond PL/SQL, for example UTL_TCP and
> UTL_SMTP use Java inside the database. PL/SQL is appropriate for traditional
> DB stored procedures involving data manipulation. Java adds functionality it
> doesn't replace PL/SQL and isn't going to any time soon. See

While that may be true, I think history has taught us that the company will push development towards where "they" want it to go, by slowly (or not so slowly) making optional features effectively mandatory. viz PL/SQL, CBO and on and on anon. Whether it is good for users? For some it will be, some it won't. It will necesarily require the ability to dumb down development. You really shouldn't need an MSCS to develop a simple form.

> http://www.oracle.com/oramag/oracle/99-Sep/index.html?59prim.html for an
> outline of this.

o.com> PL/SQL is Oracle's procedural extension to industry-standard SQL. Am I the only one who thinks making a bunch of proprietary extensions to a language makes it non-standard? If not, then MS JAVA is ok... (and I really hate being on my favorite browser-of-the-moment and having to fire up exploder because of some web site I need to go to).

o.com> A natural extension of SQL, the PL/SQL language is easy for o.com> developers to understand.

What a bunch of horse pucky! SQL is an incomplete lowest-common-denominator standard, and the whole reason for PL is to do non-relational things! Well, maybe that is easy for developers who don't know relational theory...

o.com> PL/SQL provides seamless access to the data, using language o.com> that is natural to SQL programmers.

Natural??? I'm speechless, overwhelmed with examples of the unnatural.

>
> > The feeling was PL/SQL was proprietary,
> > procedural and not OO and Java was non-proprietary, Open, OO language
> > hence Oracle strategically embraced moving to Java both for inside
> > Database and outside database (read inside database as Stored
> > procedures which was PL/SQL turf).
>
> Oh do come off it. Oracle isn't an open source company, isn't an OO company
> and doesn't make Open or Object Oriented products. It makes standards based
> products which is an entirely different thing.

The first part is true. The standards part... rationalization at best. And what do you think PL stands for? Is it really a good idea to re-write stored procedures every time you change a database vendor?  What do you do to support multiple databases? What if you want to join data between databases?

Isn't PL/SQL an oxymoron, given that SQL is non-procedural?

jg

--
@home is bogus.
"I agree that a special reward system is a bad idea. " - John Rosemond
Received on Tue Dec 31 2002 - 17:17:22 CST

Original text of this message

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