--- Shridhar Daithankar <__> wrote:
> On Friday 17 Dec 2004 3:20 pm, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > Is the Oracle one _just_ that? A cron/at replacement? What about
> porting
> > every UNIX utility to the DB engine (that would be a cross-platfrom
> Unix
> > - wow)?
> > Why don't they put web and application server functionality (apache
> and
> > PHP) in the DB? No, wait... ehm... :-)
>
> If one looks at the database and thinks, 'This is a storage engine
> with
> programming abilities', then a in-DB scheduler isn't that much
> attractive
> proposition.
>
> Look at it and think 'This is an application server with flexbile
> data storage
> engine for free' and it sounds lot more sensible.
>
Just look as Oracle came to life... started as Database Engine, and
ended up being a complex set of application, business, database,
workflow, etc etc etc.
> It is all about perspective and it is not the same from one case to
> another.
>
> I mean why would one write a PL/SQL application that counts to 1.3+
> million
> lines of code?..:-) But people do these sort of things..
Why would someone write 6 million lines of code in Cobol or RPG?
Because all applications grow in time. Many Financial, Manufacturing
and other sorts of businesses still run on their Mainframes, and nobody
complains about it.
>
> Shridhar
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
> your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
Best,
Riccardo