Re: Code in the database or middle tier (the CLR controversy)

From: Serge Rielau <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:19:43 -0400
Message-ID: <3gbaokFbaepmU1_at_individual.net>

DA Morgan wrote:
> William Stacey [MVP] wrote:
>

[Quoted] >> But your talking design now.  That has nothing to do with SQLCLR 
>> integration.  I don't see the DB design process changing just because 
>> of SQLCLR.  You will still have DBAs/ DB architects doing that work 
>> (or should).  The app guys are still going to be the app guys.  You 
>> need both. So nothing has changed in that regard.

>
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear before but I thought I brought this up.
>
> In a DB2 or Oracle environment development will be primarily in SQL even
> if other languages are allowed inside the database. In Oracle JAVA will
> not replace PL/SQL. In DB2 allowing VB in will have a negligible effect.
I think this is where we disagree. You appear to claim that TSQL, [Quoted] PL/SQL, SQL/PSM are SQL and hence RDBMS friendly. [Quoted] If you take a look at the procedural constructs of each of these SQL [Quoted] "extensions" you can mess things up equally fine as with VB, Java or C#. A VB programmer will have little difficulty using the procedural constructs of any of these SQL extensions today because they are procedural. [Quoted] In fact, doesn't Oracle support PL/SQL as an application language? [Quoted] Are programmers using PL/SQL on the app side any smarter w.r.t. [Quoted] relational SQL than those using VB? Do they write better SQL because they use PL/SQL?

[Quoted] [Quoted] IMHO, there is nothing inherintly worse in VB/SQL compared to PL/SQL... [Quoted] While VB/SQL locks you into Windows PL/SQL locks you into Oracle. Rather obvious considering the respective owners....

Cheers
Serge

-- 
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

Received on Fri Jun 03 2005 - 17:19:43 CEST