Re: Does anyone think this group needs splitting into subgroups?

From: Pieere Hansen <jhanse19_at_popmail.skypoint.com>
Date: 1996/03/08
Message-ID: <314095DD.6149_at_popmail.skypoint.com>#1/1


Steven Tolkin # VATA wrote:
>
> If a split is made we should use the word "server" not "rdbms" because Oracle
> is clearly moving to be a "Universal server", i.e. object/relational not
> purely relational.
>
> I support a split into: server, tools, jobs, and misc.
>
> It seems that trying to have a group for forms and another for reports
> would break down very soon in the face of the development of many front end
> tools: designer 2000, developer 200, express, Oracle Power objects, Oracle
> media objects, Web browser etc. etc.
>
> --
> Steven Tolkin steve.tolkin_at_fmr.com (617) 563-0516 fax 476-8974
> Fidelity Investments 82 Devonshire St. V12B Boston MA 02109
> Any remarks are my own. I'm not really an actor -- I just play one on TV.

I agree with this split. Splitting the group into more detailed groups could get ugly. Received on Fri Mar 08 1996 - 00:00:00 CET

Original text of this message