Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?
"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_no-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
> "Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message
> news:1a75df45.0310020430.6339ced4_at_posting.google.com...
> > Hans Forbrich <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote
> >
> > > The only possible argument against such religious drivel might be
> Chapter
> > > 1 of Kyte's expert one-on-one.
> >
> > Good, call. I've just photostated the first few pages and will be
> > handing it out at the next architecture meeting.
> >
> > > But it's an uphill battle precisely because it's religious (pure
> > > belief without, or deliberately ignoring, any visible means of
> > > support).
> >
> > Exactly. Which is why I'm trolling for comments and opinions, backed
> > up personal experience, to also present at the next meeting.
> >
> > One of the problems I face is the perception that I'm an Oracle
> > fanatic saying that as much as possible must be done in the database.
> > It's difficult to change this perception and show that it is a common
> > and the best practise method - and nothing to do with Oracle
> > "fanatacism".
> >
> > So, how do you counter the opinion that Oracle should be a bit bucket
> > without sounding like a fanatic?
> >
> > --
> > Billy
>
So now postulate that instead of calling stored procedures for everything, they called DAO methods for everything. How does this make things different with respect to the web-based change?
Xho
-- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GBReceived on Sat Oct 04 2003 - 14:05:40 CDT