Re: SQL*Net or ODBC
Date: 31 Jan 1999 01:12:08 GMT
Message-ID: <36c9ab30.5687796_at_netnews.worldnet.att.net>
I would go with a SQL*Net solution. Aside from the fact that ODBC requires SQL*Net anyway, I've found that ODBC can add some flakiness to an application. We have an Access application that uses ODBC to connect to Oracle, and we have run into problems when migrating from one ODBC release to another, and from one vendor's ODBC drivers to another. The app was developed under Win 3.1, using some old release of the Oracle ODBC drivers. It worked fine. When we redeployed the app on Win 95, we were forced to upgrade to a newer release of ODBC, and that caused some errors to occur when running the application. We tried using Intersolv's drivers instead, but they caused a different set of errors. Finally, we found a way to install the same old version of ODBC on Win 95 as we had on Win 3.1, and the problems went away.
regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan Gennick -- Oracle DBA, Author, Editor jonathan_at_gennick.com
http://gennick.com
Brighten the corner where you are.
On 29 Jan 1999 17:33:21 GMT, iriseds_at_aol.com (IRISEDS) wrote:
>First I'm not an "objects" nut. But I am looking for reliablity...
>We're going to use MS Visual C++ clients to talk to an Oracle server under
>Solaris.
>How does using ODBC compare with Pro*C++/SQL*Net?
>As far as I can see ODBC means we don't have any Oracle tools on the client
>(apart from their ODBC lib). But is ODBC reliable enough?
>TIA
Received on Sun Jan 31 1999 - 02:12:08 CET