On 21 Nov 2002 at 13:57, nprasad3@... wrote:

> > >Isn't this the same as embedding java into the database engine? I
> > >personally hate oracle for having done such a thing as it is
> > slow,
> > >makes the database engine un-reliable by asking the user from
> > avoiding
> > >the use of network level code that would block, avoid user
> > interface
> > >interaction in stored procedures...
> > >
> >
> > Java can be reliably implemented in a secure manner. All native
> > calls are under control of the virtual machine which can enforce any
> > policy deemed prudent.
> But whats the need for added complexity?? As long as the database
> engine has a way to write stored procedures and triggers efficiently
> (i.e. implemented in such a way that it makes the best use of the DB
> engine) I personally feel the database engine designer has done a
> great job! > > If you are willing to take guidance from Oracles bad
> implementation, > pre-version 7 would have convinced you that
> relational databases > were inherently bad. > Whenever I can use a
> flat file to store something and avoid an RDBMS.. I really do!

One of the problems we are running into, is that some people like to use one tool for
everything. Currently Stored Procedures and Triggers use a variation of SQL to do
their job. Changing this to use Java or Pascal or Basic even, isn't going to make
the process easier, in some ways it simply makes the engine more complex and
larger, without adding any real functionality.

An easier way of doing the same thing, is to determine what constructs are missing
from the existing SP/Trigger language, and to extend it, to add those capabilities.