Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

Noons wrote:

> <ctcgag_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031004160839.098$5C_at_newsreader.com...
>
> > language the procedures are written in, are two different issues. I don't
> > see that it is the case that if they are in Java, they will be in many
> > places, and if they are in Oracle, they will only be in one place.
>
> That's not the point. The point is that with Java they CAN BE in many
> places. Whereas with a DBMS like Oracle, they can ONLY BE in ONE SINGLE
> place. Take away the root of the problem, rather than shifting it.
>
> >
> > Clearly if you code the rules in a language, you would have to route your
> > other languages through that one to use the rules. This seems to be no
> > different than saying that, if you use Oracle, you can't just open the
> > datafiles with vi and muck around with them. Of course you shouldn't do
> > that.
>
> And the problem is that you HAVE TO ROUTE your other languages.

To support this - how do you enforce routing when users have Excel and ODBC? (If not Excel ... look at the next one).

No matter how solid you routing in the backplane, someone will come up with a bypass. Trying to create that solid routing will cause additional code, therefore additional maitenance cost, in whatever language you use as the business rules host. Trying to avoid that bypass will cause unnecessary complexity at the RDBMS and likely not succeed.

Been there, done that, learned the lesson. Sadly, in prototype environments things are controlled well enough that this lesson is not learned until well too late.

--
/Hans
[mailto:`echo $from" | sed "s/yahoo/telusplanet/g"`]