I have always liked his writings. Good suggestion. I will check into it.
Thanks!
--
"Ed Stevens" <nospam_at_noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:dsg9kvkdp7qqcicc3ua080im977n6a7qpd_at_4ax.com...
> Playing "straight man" for Tom Kyte? ;-)
>
> Locate yourself a copy of his "Expert One-On-One Oracle". The very
> first chapter, he lays out his arguments that pretty much agree with
> yours.
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:54:32 -0500, "Burton Peltier"
> <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Just wondering what others opinions are on this subject...
> >
> >Within our company, there are some who think in-house developed
applications
> >should be architectured such that there is no dependence on the
underlying
> >database server software - the database server should only do CRUD
> >(create,read,update,delete) processing.
> >
> >This might at first seem sensible to some, I think there are way too many
> >"gray areas" to say the above should be a "standard" that must be adhered
to
> >or have permission to do differently. I am guessing this is some people's
> >intent.
> >
> >Some people spend way too much effort trying to not "tie" themselves to 1
> >database vendor and don't take advantage of features and functionality
(in
> >Oracle for our company), at a significant loss either by lost
functionality
> >or performance or "writing their own way". Or, they do things like put
hints
> >in the SQL to tune and are "tied" anyway.
> >
> >Note: I can see where a software vendor should/has to try and work this
way.
> >But, this does not seem to make sense for a commercial company like ours.
>
Received on Fri Aug 22 2003 - 20:33:05 CDT
