Thread: fun in redmond
"Microsoft adds Java support to database Microsoft is planning to make available software for linking Java programs to its database software. The Redmond, Wash., behemoth said Tuesday that it will sell software that allows Java programs to connect to data housed in Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 database. Microsoft is licensing the software, called a Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) driver, from software maker Merant and re-branding it under the Microsoft name." Isn't that a laugh. Microsoft supporting a non standard connection method... I thought that asp was a nice secure protocol for connecting web applications to SQL server =:-D Cheers Tony Grant
What was wrong with JDBC::ODBC? I don't use Java, but I thought this solution
was out there for a while already? Just not db-specific enough for them?
tony <tony%animaproductions.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 09/26/2001 04:09:32 AM
To: postgres list <pgsql-general%postgresql.org@interlock.lexmark.com>
cc: (bcc: Wesley Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: [GENERAL] fun in redmond
"Microsoft adds Java support to database
Microsoft is planning to make available software for linking Java
programs to its database software. The Redmond, Wash., behemoth said
Tuesday that it will sell software that allows Java programs to connect
to data housed in Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 database. Microsoft is
licensing the software, called a Java Database Connectivity (JDBC)
driver, from software maker Merant and re-branding it under the
Microsoft name."
Isn't that a laugh. Microsoft supporting a non standard connection
method... I thought that asp was a nice secure protocol for connecting
web applications to SQL server =:-D
Cheers
Tony Grant
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
--- wsheldah@lexmark.com wrote: > What was wrong with JDBC::ODBC? I don't use Java, but I > thought this solution > was out there for a while already? Just not db-specific > enough for them? It's not that anything is wrong with it necessarily. But JDBC::ODBC is a DB abstraction layer on top of a DB abstraction layer, which loads on some overhead. I would think that MS is trying to do away with those performance concerns and infiltrate more Java shops through the back end (pun intended). Brent __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
* Brent R. Matzelle (bmatzelle@yahoo.com) [010926 10:05]: > --- wsheldah@lexmark.com wrote: > > What was wrong with JDBC::ODBC? I don't use Java, but I > > thought this solution > > was out there for a while already? Just not db-specific > > enough for them? > > It's not that anything is wrong with it necessarily. But > JDBC::ODBC is a DB abstraction layer on top of a DB abstraction > layer, which loads on some overhead. I would think that MS is > trying to do away with those performance concerns and infiltrate > more Java shops through the back end (pun intended). Actually, there are rather serious issues with the JDBC to ODBC bridge, which is why you'll discover that it's use has been deprecated for years, and considered unsupported. Among the problems are lack of thread safety, memory leaks, and extreme inefficiency in handling largish operations. In short, it's a toy, useless for anything except prototyping. Which is why there was/is a sizable market for aftermarket JDBC drivers. -Brad