Re: Oracle and ODBC

GreyBeard <Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:03:06 +0000, xhoster wrote:
>
> > Well, the idea is popular among non-Windows users, as well. I thought
> > ODBC was supposed to be a standard, in which case why should I have to
> > install a different client for each DB type? Other than for failover
> > support, I see no fundamental reason to require different ODBC drivers
> > on the client machines.
> >
> > Xho
>
> Standard? Well, I guess it sorta kinda qualifies. It does provide a
> 'best effort which works with everyone'. Note that it's biggest
> proponent in the early days found some limitations and responded with
> JET, ADO and other database access variations.
>
> However, ODBC really only provides an API. If you look at the chain as
>
> client >> translator >> transport >> database
>
> then ODBC acts as the front-end to the translator area. The
> transport is not defined, and for Oracle databases, the transport
> generally requires Oracle Networking.

But I don't see why they couldn't use:

client >> transport >> translator >> database.

It seems you would lose very little, and the gain of having to install the db-specific translator on 1 server rather than 100 clients would be substantial.

Yes, you would loose the functionality of SQL*Net, but haven't you effectively lost them already by using a lowest common denominator API?

Xho

-- 
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service                        $9.95/Month 30GB