Re: metalink still unuseable the 2nd day ...
From: Steve Howard <stevedhoward_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:09:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <bd63fd1a-6740-4dcb-b7c3-c030ff563060_at_j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 12, 10:57 am, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 7:48 am, MBPP <mpacheco_bra..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 4:05 pm, Noons <wizofo..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 1:38 am, MBPP <mpacheco_bra..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > IE also worked fine (version 8). I also noted they call the SWF
> > > > directly without a "wrapper" to check Flash version, etc. My Flash
> > > > version here is 10.0.32, try to upgrade if you have version 9, maybe
> > > > it can help? I read somewhere that they demand 9.0.115 or greater I
> > > > think.
>
> > > Oh great! So now, besides having to figure out all the db versions
> > > and patches to make things work, we also are supposed to track the
> > > "consistency" of browser version and flash version?
>
> > > Welcome to the brave new world of dba2.0: spend all your time trying
> > > to get the "easy, time-saving UI" to work!
>
> > > I'm on 10.0.32 Flash and latest FF and still having minor nagging
> > > problems with it. It'll go away, I'm sure. But did it really need to
> > > be like this?
>
> > Of course not, I too think the new interface could be simpler and
> > faster. Disclaimer, I don't work for Oracle but I work with Oracle
> > databases as a DBA and developer for +14 years. Note, the idea behind
> > RIA interfaces is to make the applications more interactive and faster
> > to navigate since you don't (re)load pages for every navigation and
> > you don't need to mimic visual effects using tons of CSS/Javascript.
> > The visual "appealing" in my opinion is a secondary consideration that
> > must be touched only after the application meets all its functional
> > requirements. For the past 2 years I am working with Adobe Flex
> > (Flash) creating RIA applications for customers that use Oracle as
> > database. Our architecture on the Oracle side is based on PL/SQL
> > stored procedures that dynamically generate XML via EPG or MOD_PLSQL.
> > This is in fact the same method that the old Metalink was using but
> > generating dynamic HTML. But now it seems they are using a Java middle
> > tier so most likely they recoded big portions of it. In my opinion if
> > they would have continued to use MOD_PLSQL they would just need to
> > adapt the output to XML (via a parameter) and things would be much
> > simpler and faster. They would be able to run both versions in
> > parallel without the need to migrate any data. Once users are happy
> > and it is stable you turn the old off. On the interface side they
> > could just keep more or less the same general interface as the old
> > Metalink in version 1 and enhance it visually in the next versions.
> > Apparently they did too much in one shot and the results are here for
> > everyone to see. This is something I saw many times in the past, the
> > development/management team is induced with "hype" technologies and
> > make things much more complex than they should be.
>
> I don't know about the most of the people on this board, but I use
> Metalink almost exclusively for searching issues I am currently
> encountering. Fix that first, as it is absolutely awful, even if it
> didn't come from a database company. I mean atrocious.
>
> I was on a call with a support analyst from Oracle yesterday (an
> absolutely fantastic one, BTW), and he said he had just googled
> something for an answer. That's all I needed to hear. Download
> Google's home search page and see how many bytes it is.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:09:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <bd63fd1a-6740-4dcb-b7c3-c030ff563060_at_j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 12, 10:57 am, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 7:48 am, MBPP <mpacheco_bra..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 4:05 pm, Noons <wizofo..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 1:38 am, MBPP <mpacheco_bra..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > IE also worked fine (version 8). I also noted they call the SWF
> > > > directly without a "wrapper" to check Flash version, etc. My Flash
> > > > version here is 10.0.32, try to upgrade if you have version 9, maybe
> > > > it can help? I read somewhere that they demand 9.0.115 or greater I
> > > > think.
>
> > > Oh great! So now, besides having to figure out all the db versions
> > > and patches to make things work, we also are supposed to track the
> > > "consistency" of browser version and flash version?
>
> > > Welcome to the brave new world of dba2.0: spend all your time trying
> > > to get the "easy, time-saving UI" to work!
>
> > > I'm on 10.0.32 Flash and latest FF and still having minor nagging
> > > problems with it. It'll go away, I'm sure. But did it really need to
> > > be like this?
>
> > Of course not, I too think the new interface could be simpler and
> > faster. Disclaimer, I don't work for Oracle but I work with Oracle
> > databases as a DBA and developer for +14 years. Note, the idea behind
> > RIA interfaces is to make the applications more interactive and faster
> > to navigate since you don't (re)load pages for every navigation and
> > you don't need to mimic visual effects using tons of CSS/Javascript.
> > The visual "appealing" in my opinion is a secondary consideration that
> > must be touched only after the application meets all its functional
> > requirements. For the past 2 years I am working with Adobe Flex
> > (Flash) creating RIA applications for customers that use Oracle as
> > database. Our architecture on the Oracle side is based on PL/SQL
> > stored procedures that dynamically generate XML via EPG or MOD_PLSQL.
> > This is in fact the same method that the old Metalink was using but
> > generating dynamic HTML. But now it seems they are using a Java middle
> > tier so most likely they recoded big portions of it. In my opinion if
> > they would have continued to use MOD_PLSQL they would just need to
> > adapt the output to XML (via a parameter) and things would be much
> > simpler and faster. They would be able to run both versions in
> > parallel without the need to migrate any data. Once users are happy
> > and it is stable you turn the old off. On the interface side they
> > could just keep more or less the same general interface as the old
> > Metalink in version 1 and enhance it visually in the next versions.
> > Apparently they did too much in one shot and the results are here for
> > everyone to see. This is something I saw many times in the past, the
> > development/management team is induced with "hype" technologies and
> > make things much more complex than they should be.
>
> I don't know about the most of the people on this board, but I use
> Metalink almost exclusively for searching issues I am currently
> encountering. Fix that first, as it is absolutely awful, even if it
> didn't come from a database company. I mean atrocious.
>
> I was on a call with a support analyst from Oracle yesterday (an
> absolutely fantastic one, BTW), and he said he had just googled
> something for an answer. That's all I needed to hear. Download
> Google's home search page and see how many bytes it is.
Here is a new one I just got:
"User howards is not approved to read SR's."
My list of SR's is growing, but I can't see them. Ironic, don't you think? :)
This is officially the worst software release I have seen in 21 years. Received on Mon Nov 16 2009 - 12:09:28 CST