Re: ODBC vs Pro*c or OCI

On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:05:51 GMT, argosy22_at_my-deja.com wrote:

>HI,
>
>Between OCI, and ProC, I would definetly go with ProC.
>
>ProC has a small learning curve.
>
>OCI has a huge learning curve. And then, you
>get your quirky programmers who like to do
>things their own strange ways, making maintenance
>far more difficult.
>
>ProC (.pc) precompiles everything to its OCI (.c)
>equivilent, so I would fail to see any performance
>benefits from OCI. Both are executable files
>off of the Unix system.
>
>Argosy
>

You're a little misinformed about the difference between Pro*C and OCI. Here's an excerpt from the Pro*C/C++ precompiler FAQ, which can be found on the Oracle Technet (http://technet.oracle.com):

Question:

Does Pro*C/C++ generate calls to the Oracle Call Interface (OCI)?

Answer:

No. Pro*C/C++ generates data structures, and calls to its runtime library: SQLLIB (libsql.a in UNIX). SQLLIB, in turn, calls the UPI to communicate with the database.

Question:

Then why not just code using SQLLIB calls, and not use Pro*C/C++?

Answer:

SQLLIB is not externally documented, is unsupported, and might change from release to release. Also, Pro*C/C++ is an ANSI/ISO compliant product, that follows the standard requirements for embedded SQL. If you need to do low-level coding, use the OCI. It is supported, and is guaranteed to stay compatible from release to release. Also, Oracle is committed to supporting the OCI.

You can also mix OCI and Pro*C. Received on Tue Jul 27 1999 - 14:24:45 CEST