RE: Universal database interface?
- From: "Mercadante, Thomas F" <thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'gogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jkstill@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:27:07 -0400
YOU are the-man Mladen!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Mladen Gogala [mailto:gogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:54 PM
To: jkstill@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxx; Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Universal database interface?
On 04/12/2005 08:11:41 PM, Jared Still wrote:
> ----
> "Many developers are happy to trade runtime performance for cross-platfor=
m=20
> portability."
>=20
> Maybe the developers are happy, because performance is the DBA's problem,=
=20
> right?
> ----
Spoken like a true architect! I welcome the standards and "database
independent applications". Those are the things that enable me to earn
my salary. Here is the law of Mladen: application that starts as a
database independent will have to become Oracle specific in order to
achieve an acceptable level of performance. My favorite toys are
Object-Relational Mappers (ORM), recently a genuine hit among Java
duhveleopers. Allegedly, they'll transform a relational query into a
Java object which will then be passed through BZZZTYIKL or some other
abbreviation resembling Vogon poetry, which will do an indescribable
magic and, in particular, generate an acceptable user interface. To
attain sub-hour web response, I ended up writing a ton of PL/SQL
procedures implementing those "queries". When application was finished,
it was database independent, provided that the database was supporting
PL/SQL, external tables, BFILE fields, function based indexes and
UTL_SMTP package. That is my kind of unified approach and my kind of
database independence!
--=20
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
