Re: How many ORACLE_HOME values are there supposed to be?

"Karsten Farrell" <kfarrell_at_belgariad.com> wrote in message news:MPG.18da9a942e2b4ebf9896f6_at_news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> For top posters: Comments embedded below...
>
> howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au said...
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:08:18 +0000, Karsten Farrell wrote:
> >
> > > Oracle is no different than any other software vendor, I suppose.
> > > Documentation always seems to get pushed to the back of the
development
> > > cycle.
> >
> > It's a bit difficult to put it at the *front* of the development cycle!!
> >
> > "Here: we're thinking of including some functionality in the next
release,
> > but we're not sure what it will be, nor how it will work. Start
> > documenting it, would you?"
> >
> > Hmmmm.
> >

> Of course, you're absolutely correct.

Funny, too, I hope. There was a sprinkling of irony there.

>However, there are more milestones
> in the development cycle than the front end and back end. My comment was
> meant to imply that it would be nice if it was done somewhere in the
> middle, as each "piece" is finished ... not that it wait until two days
> before the day when they copy everything to the CD.

Absolutely. And 9 times out of 10, that's exactly what they do. And hence the error rate is pretty low, considering the things that change at the last minute.

As a for example, I was preparing to teach 9i New Features, and had to learn on the beta. The external tables stuff used the clause 'missing fields are null'... and that made it's way into the course documentation. By the time v1 was released, it was 'missing field values are null'. It's that sort of late change that throws 'em... and I dare say there's not a lot to be done about it. The error's still there in the 9iR2 course notes, but I guess they've probably moved on to 10i stuff by now.

> And incidently, there are times when the developers tell the documentors
> that they'll implement a particular feature ... but release dates creep
> up too quickly and that particular feature gets "cut" from the release.
> It has happened with Oracle (and other software vendors) in the past ...
> where the readme makes the correction.

Once again, absolutely: course notes for 9iR1 talked about "both types of standby", when there was only one. They'd hoped to put logical standby in that release, and had to pull it at the last moment, I think.

>
> > >A lot of times, changes are made to Oracle software that never
> > > make it into the doc set ... or the doc set uses an old name for a
> > > feature that has been given a new marketing-oriented name.
> >
> > A bit harsh. Oracle is one the most extensively documented products I
> > know. If bits and pieces get out of synch, I can forgive them that.
> >
> Of course, you're absolutely correct again. Which makes me wonder what
> it is that we're debating here. :)

We're not, really. We both think they do OK, but get niggled at little slip-ups. I should refrain from attempting humour, I think, as nobody but me ever seems to "get it"!!

Regards
HJR Received on Thu Mar 13 2003 - 20:04:13 CST