Обсуждение: Filemaker, PostgreSQL, JDBC and Webobjects
Hi, We have a filemaker solution that we have sunk a lot of money and time into. We would like to use Webobjects as the web application server, connect to PostgreSQL via JDBC, and, --- here's the tricky part, --- ask PostgreSQL (maybe through stored procedures and more JDBC) to access / update our Filemaker database files --- all as the same transaction and back to the Webobjects front end. Is this possible at all? Thanks Uma
It would seem that if there is a way to access filemaker via Java, this would be possible, but if all of your data lives on the filemaker system, how does adding postgresql to the mix add value? Can you explain a bit more about the motivation for this approach? -Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Uma Natarajan > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:33 PM > To: PostgreSQL -jdbc > Subject: [JDBC] Filemaker, PostgreSQL, JDBC and Webobjects > > > Hi, > > We have a filemaker solution that we have sunk a lot of money and time > into. > We would like to use Webobjects as the web application server, connect > to PostgreSQL via JDBC, and, --- here's the tricky part, --- ask > PostgreSQL (maybe through stored procedures and more JDBC) to access / > update our Filemaker database files --- all as the same transaction and > back to the Webobjects front end. > > Is this possible at all? > > Thanks > Uma > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
Hi, My boss found postgresql is not as easy as MS-ACCESS in that postgresql is mainly deployed on unix/linux side, and deploying on windows platform is particulously troublesome. that means the company has to spend more dollars for a linux server for that database. i know some alternative as MySQL, but i heard that product doesn't support nested query, no updatable view, no outter join, etc. so are there any better tools around as easy, quick, yet powerful DB candidate?
I'm guessing that you meant to post this question to the ODBC list, as it has nothing to do with JDBC, but here's my opinion... I think that generally speaking, the people who are using postgresql would agree that we are doing it because we find that for multi-user systems or other non-trivial database applications, supporting a Linux server with postgresql on it turns out to be far easier and less expensive than any approach that depends on windows. MySQL does have a windows version. You can find it somewhere on www.MySQL.com. I evaluated MySQL about 2 years ago, and chose PostgreSQL instead, but a lot can happen in two years. If you become convinced that it is worth the effort to support postgresql, I think you'll find many people on the ODBC list who can help with using MSAccess as a front-end to PostgreSQL. -Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Henry > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 2:19 PM > To: PostgreSQL -jdbc > Subject: [JDBC] alternative to postgresql > > > Hi, > > My boss found postgresql is not as easy as MS-ACCESS in that postgresql is > mainly > deployed on unix/linux side, and deploying on windows platform is > particulously troublesome. that means the company has to spend > more dollars > for a linux server for that > database. i know some alternative as MySQL, but i heard that product > doesn't support > nested query, no updatable view, no outter join, etc. so are there any > better tools around > as easy, quick, yet powerful DB candidate? > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
Odd... doesn't Access have runtime license costs for production? If you're not paying those, then I guess that isn't an issue. You could always reuse an existing system that you have for Access and install Linux on that computer. Also, PostgreSQL does run on windows with cygwin installed I believe. (That's what I've been told... I don't run windows so I'm personally not sure.) When you say 'easy', do you only mean installation-wise? On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 12:19, Henry wrote: > Hi, > > My boss found postgresql is not as easy as MS-ACCESS in that postgresql is > mainly > deployed on unix/linux side, and deploying on windows platform is > particulously troublesome. that means the company has to spend more dollars > for a linux server for that > database. i know some alternative as MySQL, but i heard that product > doesn't support > nested query, no updatable view, no outter join, etc. so are there any > better tools around > as easy, quick, yet powerful DB candidate? > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- Virtually, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com> D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
Вложения
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 14:19, Henry wrote: > Hi, > > My boss found postgresql is not as easy as MS-ACCESS in that postgresql is > mainly > deployed on unix/linux side, and deploying on windows platform is > particulously troublesome. that means the company has to spend more dollars > for a linux server for that > database. i know some alternative as MySQL, but i heard that product > doesn't support > nested query, no updatable view, no outter join, etc. so are there any > better tools around > as easy, quick, yet powerful DB candidate? Well is it more expensive to purchase a linux server or to purchase MS SQL Server with enough client licenses and a server to run it. Face it, if your database has outgrown Access, you'll have to spend some money. And a linux server running PostgreSQL is a heckuva lot cheaper than a Windows 2000 server running SQL Server. -- Jeff Self Information Technology Analyst Department of Personnel City of Newport News 2400 Washington Ave. Newport News, VA 23607 757-926-6930
Henry, You might want to take a look at SAPDB (www.sapdb.org), the open-source db from SAP AG. Runs really great, scales well, also on Windows, has lots and lots of features (transactions, constraints, triggers, stored procedures, subqueries, no vacuuming, query by example, visual queries, dynamic growing etc. etc. ), 600+ page documentation, an SQL client for Windows, a C precompiler, a webserver, replication manager, wonderful support people (online) and a small but steadily growing group of users, mainly in Europe. On some edges it's still a bit rough, but that makes it only more charming. Interfaces are available for ODBC, Perl, Python, PHP and JDBC. It's totally free, even for commercial applications. Another option, also not too known, and which runs nicely on Windows, is Intersystems Cache (www.intersystems.com) . It's commercial and proprietary, but they recently lowered their pricing (starts now in the range of $3000, correct me if I'm wrong..., with a free download for developpers ). It's a postrelational database offering best of both worlds (RDBMS + OO) and multi-dimensional; and apparently scales and performs extremely well under heavy load. It integrates an application server into the database, and allows pretty easy development of webapplications (using Cache Server Pages, JSP, ASP, Perl etc.). Installation on Windows is extremly simple, within 5 minutes you have it integrated into IIS and running. I haven't tried it on Solaris or Linux yet. Cache is mainly used in the health industry but their most prominent client is Ameritrade. According to an independent study it outperforms Oracle in several quite important areas - not only in regards of pricing! With all respect for PostGreSQL - but if you are on Windows and don't want to go through the hassles of Cygwin you should definitely take them into consideration. Markus Gieppner ........................................ MGF International Inc., New York Webapplications - Ecommerce - Publishing (1) 212-477 5399 ........................................ -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Henry Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 2:19 PM To: PostgreSQL -jdbc Subject: [JDBC] alternative to postgresql Hi, My boss found postgresql is not as easy as MS-ACCESS in that postgresql is mainly deployed on unix/linux side, and deploying on windows platform is particulously troublesome. that means the company has to spend more dollars for a linux server for that database. i know some alternative as MySQL, but i heard that product doesn't support nested query, no updatable view, no outter join, etc. so are there any better tools around as easy, quick, yet powerful DB candidate? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.324 / Virus Database: 181 - Release Date: 2/14/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.324 / Virus Database: 181 - Release Date: 2/14/2002
>With all respect for PostGreSQL - but if you are on Windows and don't want >to go through the hassles of Cygwin you should definitely take them into >consideration. I last tried Cygwin quite some time ago. It was a hassle back then. However, just this week I used the really well done FAQ at: http://www.ejip.net/faq/postgresql_win_setup_faq.jsp Which walked you step by step through the Cygwin install (much improved since the last time I used it), IPC install (a really simple one file download), and PostgreSQL (7.1.3, although they also have 7.2 available) setup under Windows. I was absolutely amazed - it worked perfectly, no hitches - first time. I even pg_dump'd and compressed my Linux database and restored it - first try - pointed my Java programs to the Windows server, and voila. My opinion: If you like PostgreSQL and have about 15-30 minutes (plus download time) to install it on Windows - do it, no questions asked. If you don't have 15-30 minutes to solve a problem, then why are you wasting our time asking a question? :) Cheers, Doug