Re: choices regarding where to place code - in the database or middletier

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:01:56 -0800
Message-ID: <1075402857.512884@yasure>

Stu Charlton wrote:

> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1075365124.32752_at_yasure>...
>
>

>>"Complete DBMS *dependence* means utilizing (all) those DBMS-vendor
>>specific functions that optimize or implement security, performance, and 
>>scalability (and other stuff)"
>>
>>and
>>
>>"Complete DBMS independence means that a system is not bound to a given
>>DBMS, because it uses only the functionality offered by the DBMS that is
>>accessible via DBMS-neutral syntax"
>>
>>What you suggest is a logical impossibility.

>
>
> I think I understand completely what Joe is trying to say, so I doubt
> it is a logical impossibliity. I suggest it's a communications gap.
>
>

>>In Oracle, for example, there is no better place to put code than in a 
>>package; for numerous reasons. No other database vendor has the concept 
>>... therefore throw packages away.

>
>
> That's not the suggestion at all. Packages are good things and should
> be used in any case you have stored procedures.
>
>

>>In Oracle and DB2 the best way to do numering is with a sequence. SQL 
>>Server and Sybase don't have them so throw sequences away. Of course SQL 

>
>
> Again, that's not the case. Keep your sequences.
>
>

>>Sorry Joe ... but your attempt to construe development to sell your 
>>company's product is a great way to do some things. Creating high 
>>performance scalable databases isn't one of them. Not once has Oracle 
>>won a benchmark contest with BEA using generic code. No one else will 
>>either.

>
>
> I think the point is not about generic vs. specific code. Genericity
> is a trade-off against performance, and isn't always applicable.
>
> The point, I believe, is about trade-offs of what features to use when
> you are building a commercial distributed system that involves several
> product sets. Performance is usually the primary consideration with
> any large system, but it rarely is the only consideration (except,
> perhaps, for benchmarks).

Please acknowledge that once your code is in packages and you are using sequences ... the code absolutely can not be compatible with code written for any other database product: No exceptions. It just will not be compatible and no quantity of bubble gum, paper clips, or rubber bands is going to make it compatible.

So while I will gladly acknowledge a communication gap I still can't get past thinking what you guys are proposing is a logical impossibility. If you disagree, and I suspect you do/will, then please provide an example of how you could use packages and sequences in Oracle and meet your stated objective.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Thu Jan 29 2004 - 13:01:56 CST