Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!news.he.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail From: "Howard J. Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Any APIs? Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:40:49 +1000 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <01c2242d$4688e4a0$8c79158b@mhw09108> <3D27DA75.F85F0E6F@ureach.com> <3D28B201.81F5A9A2@ureach.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p626-apx1.syd.ihug.com.au X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1026096017 18565 203.173.142.118 (8 Jul 2002 02:40:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 02:40:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Xref: easynews comp.databases.oracle.server:153337 X-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 19:37:34 MST (news.easynews.com) "Karen" wrote in message news:3D28B201.81F5A9A2@ureach.com... > > > > > > Whoa! You'll have to run that one pass me again. Oracle are "trying to get > > rid" of tnsnames.ora and listener.ora?? > > > > I don't think so. > > > > They may be trying to get rid of static SID declarations in the > > listener.ora. But that's about it. Service names need resolving. There will > > *always* be a need therefore for a resolving mechanism. TNSNAMES is just a > > resolving mechanism. There are others (names server, etc). But tnsnames is > > basic, functional and ain't going nowhere soon. > > > > Likewise... the listener will always be with us, and will always need > > configuring if the defaults aren't appropriate to your needs. > > > > Regards > > HJR > > I thinks attempts to get rid of these files are being made. Dynamic instance > registration is an example. That doesn't get rid of anything, except a SID_LIST in Listener.ora. You still need a Listener.Ora to tell the Listener what name it should have and what port it should listen on -unless you are happy to accept the defaults, which are severely restrictive for most practical purposes. > > Oracle Names is a much better alternative to tnsnames, This statement just isn't true. Oracle Names is actually going to be de-supported (yup, it's *that* much better than tnsnames), and in the meantime it is only doing what tnsnames.ora does, but on a larger scale. The magic point being the words 'larger scale'. When you've a couple of dozen clients to configure, automated distribution of tnsnames to PCs is probably far easier than building a Names infrastructure. Beyond that number, Names or similar LDAP-compliant technologies have compelling management advances, true. But Oracle nowehere promotes Names as a 'preferred' solution, and tnsnames as a 'deprecated' one. They each have their niches. >just like DNS is an > alternative to /etc/hosts. Precisely. I don't see /etc/hosts going anywhere soon, do you? And why not, indeed? For a dozen PCs, hosts is a perfectly reasonable solution, and no-one would seriously suggest that anyone was "trying to get rid of it". Horses for courses. HJR