Re: FLAME Re: What about the Oracle vs Sybase Ads?

In article <1993Feb20.130416.14764_at_qiclab.scn.rain.com> tcox_at_qiclab.scn.rain.com (Thomas Cox) writes:

>des_at_helix.nih.gov (David E. Scheim) writes:
 

>>You missed my point. I said that distributed DBMS is a bleeding-edge
>>technology now whose complexities make the ease of programming a two-phase
>>commit a minor issue. Clearly, however, a product that would simplify that
>>task and do all the other necessary optimization well would have an
>>advantage.
>
>Oh. First, you say that only Sybase offers the features that you need
>to implement a "real world client server" RDBMS solution. Now you say
>that Sybase's features are "bleeding edge", and Sybase's marketing
>mantra of the last six years, "two phase commit", is suddenly revealed
>to be "a minor issue". And I'm supposed to trust these people?
>

I think maybe you missed his point again. He said distributed DBMS is a bleeding-edge technology (with which I agree), not that Sybase is bleedingedge.   I think he's trying to say that this particular area in general is still in early developmental phases, regardless of current implementations. The actual point of his statement, I believe, was that the complexity of a functional distributed DBMS offering the purported levels of optimization of Sybase may justify the necessary two-phase commit (until some better method comes along). Not that the two-phase commit is a minor issue. That's the way I read it, anyway. Now that I've deposited my 2 cents worth, I leave this heated discussion......

John Hayes

-- 
    ---{john hayes}  OLDOMINISITY; Norfolk, Virginia USA
                     internet: aiko_at_cs.odu.edu