Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

<ctcgag_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031004160839.098$5C_at_newsreader.com...

> language the procedures are written in, are two different issues. I don't
> see that it is the case that if they are in Java, they will be in many
> places, and if they are in Oracle, they will only be in one place.

That's not the point. The point is that with Java they CAN BE in many places. Whereas with a DBMS like Oracle, they can ONLY BE in ONE SINGLE place. Take away the root of the problem, rather than shifting it.

>
> Clearly if you code the rules in a language, you would have to route your
> other languages through that one to use the rules. This seems to be no
> different than saying that, if you use Oracle, you can't just open the
> datafiles with vi and muck around with them. Of course you shouldn't do
> that.

And the problem is that you HAVE TO ROUTE your other languages. Which is open to error, misinterpretation, lack of doco, incorrect use of the API, etc. Write and test them in the DBMS and you do NOT HAVE TO ROUTE anything through any language dependent layer. No matter how many languages you throw at it. Can you guarantee that in 3 years C# won't be more popular than Java? What happens to the "routing" in Java when C# comes along? Put it in the DBMS and stop worrying about the data tier and how to interface to it from the next "big thing".

> That's an argument keeping the data access code in one place, but not
> really for which place that should be. I prefer that that place be the
> database, not Java. But I see that as more of a preference than a holy
> war.

A very good point. The problem is that it IS a holy war. Started and fed by the bit bucket brigade.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam