RE: Anyone with experience with MMOG and databases?
- From: "Kennedy, Jim" <jim_kennedy@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <stephenbooth.uk@xxxxxxxxx>, "Grant Allen" <Grant.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:09:15 -0700
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of stephen booth
Sent: Sat 8/13/2005 6:27 AM
To: Grant Allen
Cc: Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Anyone with experience with MMOG and databases?
On 13/08/05, Grant Allen <Grant.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> E151: Transaction Support ... a big *no* for DB2 and SQL Server. Well I'll
> be damned - that'll suprise a few hundred of my customers. Wait, look closer
> ... the sub-criteria (E151-01 and -02) are met by them all (commit and
> rollback), but somehow we've got Mimer and Oracle counted at the criteria
> heading level as well. That's does wonders for your compliance percentage :-)
>
I pointed out a number of similar things 'errors' to the person who
gave me the link (in particular E051-08, E021-06 and E021-04). They
explained that the author of the page was on the drafting panel for
the 1999 SQL standard and when they were putting together the page
they were very pedantic about complaince. The RDBMS had to not only
do what the standard said but also do it precisely how the standard
said it should be done.
Stephen
--
It's better to ask a silly question than to make a silly assumption.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Smacks of standards for standards stake. What probably happened was Oracle and
others had those commands first, the standard came around, and the difference
was so small that to change it would have caused people grief. Pragmatic vs
academic rigidity.
Jim
Other related posts:
