Re: Foreign key in Oracle Sql
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:16:31 +0100
Message-ID: <0mptu0dl99j08de218eao5cov0812sq8ee_at_4ax.com>
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:22:45 -0800, DA Morgan wrote:
(snip)
>there be any revenue generated in exchange for the massive expense?
How many extra licenses this change would sell and whether that return is worth the investment is another question - one that the marketing people at Oracle will have to try to answer.
> Then
>look at it from the standpoint of all of the major application vendors
>such as SAP, PeopleSoft, Siebel, Baan, etc. whose code sits on top of
>Oracle? How much of their code would need to be rewriten and retested?
(snip)
>With joins Oracle can add a second syntax and resolve them to perform
>the same function. But with the difference in the behavior NULL it is
>not one that lends itself to if you see '' treat it one way sometimes
>and another way at other times.
Of course, it is always possible to make treatment of '' dependent on a
setting. Set this setting to "compatibility mode" and '' is treated the
same as NULL, set it to "ANSI mode" and '' is treated as ''. Add a
statement to change the settings between queries. Customers can then start
by choosing the "compatibility mode", later switching to "ANSI mode" and
back when they start upgrading queries until finally, they are completely
running in "ANSI mode".
Announce that "compatibility mode" will be supported for the near future,
but might be discontinued in a future version. Use a large time frame (at
least 10 years) before actually discontinuing the compatibility mode. This
should give customers ample time to rewrite their code.
But I agree: the cost for Oracle will be high and the return unsure. I do understand the business reasons for not moving to standard treatment of empty strings.
Best, Hugo
-- (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)Received on Thu Jan 20 2005 - 00:16:31 CET