Re: Oracle and Java. Does Oracle know something some of us don't?

"Vladimir M. Zakharychev" wrote:

> Can't agree more. :) Just take a quick look at What's New in PL/SQL
> for 9.2 - the length of the list of the new features and improvements
> suggests that Oracle is not about to dump the language any time soon,
> instead they continuously improve it and add more features to it.
> Whereas JVM was just updated to 1.3 specs (and is not fully compatible
> with some frameworks.) That's substantial investment into the
> technology and I don't think Oracle's intention is to waste it some time
> soon...
>
> --
> Vladimir Zakharychev (bob@dpsp-yes.com) http://www.dpsp-yes.com
> Dynamic PSP(tm) - the first true RAD toolkit for Oracle-based internet applications.
> All opinions are mine and do not necessarily go in line with those of my employer.
>
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3E171C33.89C20E01_at_exesolutions.com...
> > Rauf Sarwar wrote:
> >
> > > I hate to start another thread on this but I could not resist.
> > >
> > > There are some interesting posts in another thread "Java to die in
> > > 2003" about pros and cons of Oracle's integration with Java. One of
> > > the interesting thing mentioned in some of the posts is that Oracle is
> > > trying to push PL/SQL away and replace it with Java. Even I myself
> > > opposed the idea with a bold statement that "It was never Oracle's
> > > intention to replace PL/SQL with Java and Java is only there as a
> > > support to PL/SQL in whatever it cannot handle".
> > >
> > > Just for curiosity to see where Oracle stands on this issue, I thumbed
> > > through from current to some of the past issues of Oracle magazine.
> > > Although I did not realize this before but to my surprise, almost 80%
> > > to 90% of "Oracle Technology related" articles published by Oracle
> > > magazine within last few months are about Java, J2EE, EJB and all the
> > > other fancy Java related acronyms.
> > >
> > > In most current issue of Oracle magazine (Jan/Feb 2003), there is an
> > > article by Kuassi Mensah, "Simplify with Java stored procedure". Under
> > > "PL/SQL or Java" subheading, he/she writes "When you think of Oracle
> > > stored procedures, you probably think of PL/SQL. Oracle, however, has
> > > provided Java support in the database since Oracle 8i, to offer an
> > > open and portable alternative to PL/SQL for stored procedures.....".
> > > Entire article after this is about all the wonderfull things Java can
> > > do in Oracle... which to some part I agree.
> > >
> > > The thing that caught my attention above was "...open and portable
> > > alternative to PL/SQL for stored procedures". Is Oracle really trying
> > > to slowly sneak Java in to replace PL/SQL? I guess only Oracle knows
> > > the answer to that question. This is only one article... but the fact
> > > that Oracle magazine published it carries some weight.
> > >
> > > I hope I am not wrong in my assumption that "It was never Oracle's
> > > intention to replace PL/SQL with Java" but it looks like that Oracle
> > > knows something that some of us don't!!!
> > >
> > > Any thoughts.
> > >
> > > /Rauf Sarwar
> >
> > The intention of Oracle Magazine is marketing. It is there to sell the
> > product line. Since Oracle needs little push to sell the RDBMS and PL/SQL
> > it concentrates on making people aware of other tools and other ways to
> > accomplish goals.
> >
> > The death of PL/SQL would be the death of Oracle as a corporation. Larry
> > may be many things but suicidal and stupid are not on the list. Java and
> > all of the other tools will only threaten PL/SQL when they perform as
> > well, allow rapid development, and are accepted as the primary
> > development tool by the vast majority of Oracle's customers. And I expect
> > to be retired long before that happens.
> >
> > Daniel Morgan
> >

Thanks.

And one thing I should have mentioned but didn't is that Java belongs to Sun Microsystems, not Oracle Corp whereas PL/SQL is solely controlled by Oracle.

There is not a chance that Oracle would put its future success or failure into the hands of someone else's Board of Directors. There are no numbers small enough to express the chance of that happening.

Daniel Morgan Received on Sun Jan 05 2003 - 14:44:10 CST