Re: OFA

On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, Bill Hawkins wrote (in part):

> I would like to have some feedback on OFA use to determine if OFA is
> generally used in Oracle Unix shops or not?
(snip)
>
> I'm prefer strong opinions (pro or con) so that I can establish a future
> direction.

(snip)

        I am 'pro' the idea of an organized file architecture, but
        very 'con' on this implementation of it.  The pathnames are
        excessively long and cumbersome.  On one machine where Oracle
        was installed by a third party, we had vanilla OFA and I hated
        it.  I tried a modified version of it, getting rid of some
        of the levels.  (I changed path a/b/c/d/e to a/c/e.)  On
        the machine where we had installed oracle before OFA, we
        came up with our own pattern for naming file systems and
        directories to identify their function.  I would suggest
        thinking about what OFA was trying to achieve, and come up
        with a standard of your own that will be usable consistently
        over multiple platforms.

        But, that's just -my- opinion :')    Any others ?

        helena

--

<:>-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<:>
<: Helena Whitaker, DBA                         helena_at_creighton.edu :>
<: Creighton University               (0800-1630 CT)   (402)280-2311 :>
<: Computer Center                                fax  (402)280-2573 :>
<: 2500 California Plaza                Platform: HP-UX 9.0.4 (unix) :>
<: Omaha, NE 68178-0046                      HP 9000/H50, /E25, /842 :>
<: (also Nebraska            Oracle 7.1.6.2/SCT Banner Finance 2.0.5 :>
<:  Oracle Users Group)     Oracle 7.1.6.2/DeLair Patient Accounting :>
<:>-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<:>