Re: Different date formats between thin and thick clients
- From: Sandra Becker <sbecker6925@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:23:08 -0700
I'm going to try to address all the suggestions and questions but forgive me
if I miss one.
The decision to switch from thick to thin was to address an invalid
character issue. I could never get anyone to give me the exact details so I
could research it. The developers did the research and decided that's what
we should do. I had no input and no say in in the decision. Unfortunately,
the thin does not use NLS as was stated in this thread.
The database default format is currently set to what the application
expects. The thin client is not using it hence our problem with the date
format being incorrect for processing.
I suggested fixing the code but that was nixed in favor of creating a new
user for this particular processing and writing a logon trigger. Management
is satisfied with this solution even though it has opened another can of
worms around our non-prod environments I am dealing with today.
Fixing code never seems to be an option here. I've tried for 5 years to get
them to see the value of fixing code in many areas, but I digress.
We have new application servers that use the 11.2 client and we are not
having an issue on those servers for the processes they run. The 9.2 client
is on our old 32-bit servers and the processes are strictly batch so it
isn't causing problems for the portion of the application our customers use
interactively. IT and development are working on moving the batch processes
to the new servers, but there have been complications in the undocumented
home-grown code.
Thanks everyone for your responses.
--
Sandy
Transzap, Inc.
Other related posts:
