Re: choices regarding where to place code - in the database or middletier
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:01:56 -0800
Message-ID: <1075402857.512884_at_yasure>
Stu Charlton wrote:
> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1075365124.32752@yasure>...
>
>
>>"Complete DBMS *dependence* means utilizing (all) those DBMS-vendor >>specific functions that optimize or implement security, performance, and >>scalability (and other stuff)" >> >>and >> >>"Complete DBMS independence means that a system is not bound to a given >>DBMS, because it uses only the functionality offered by the DBMS that is >>accessible via DBMS-neutral syntax" >> >>What you suggest is a logical impossibility.
>
>
> I think I understand completely what Joe is trying to say, so I doubt
> it is a logical impossibliity. I suggest it's a communications gap.
>
>
>>In Oracle, for example, there is no better place to put code than in a >>package; for numerous reasons. No other database vendor has the concept >>... therefore throw packages away.
>
>
> That's not the suggestion at all. Packages are good things and should
> be used in any case you have stored procedures.
>
>
>>In Oracle and DB2 the best way to do numering is with a sequence. SQL >>Server and Sybase don't have them so throw sequences away. Of course SQL
>
>
> Again, that's not the case. Keep your sequences.
>
>
>>Sorry Joe ... but your attempt to construe development to sell your >>company's product is a great way to do some things. Creating high >>performance scalable databases isn't one of them. Not once has Oracle >>won a benchmark contest with BEA using generic code. No one else will >>either.
>
>
> I think the point is not about generic vs. specific code. Genericity
> is a trade-off against performance, and isn't always applicable.
>
> The point, I believe, is about trade-offs of what features to use when
> you are building a commercial distributed system that involves several
> product sets. Performance is usually the primary consideration with
> any large system, but it rarely is the only consideration (except,
> perhaps, for benchmarks).
[Quoted] Please acknowledge that once your code is in packages and you are using sequences ... the code absolutely can not be compatible with code written for any other database product: No exceptions. It just will not be compatible and no quantity of bubble gum, paper clips, or rubber bands is going to make it compatible.
[Quoted] So while I will gladly acknowledge a communication gap I still can't get past thinking what you guys are proposing is a logical impossibility. If you disagree, and I suspect you do/will, then please provide an example of how you could use packages and sequences in Oracle and meet your stated objective.
-- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)Received on Thu Jan 29 2004 - 20:01:56 CET