|
Buck, I'm not saying that OS/400 JDBC is bad compared to other JDBC - on the contrary, the toolbox guys have worked really hard to make it as fast as possible. I'm saying that, except for certain classes of queries, JDBC is not as fast as native I/O. And, I'm saying that, for CLIENT-SIDE programming, JDBC binds the client to the physical location of the data, whereas a true server architecture (be it message-based, or EJB, or a roll-your-own persistent object technique) completely hides the implementation details. JDBC can be a way for bad programmers to hide their lack of programming ability. Rather than having to design a database with the appropriate views, they can simply slap a SELECT statement into any program to get any field or fields they need. The SQL programming I decry is the type done without forethought. This is NOT a blanket condemnation of SQL or even of JDBC! Because Fred brings up a good point: the correct architecture for a good client/server design is exactly the same as for a good JDBC design. My problem is not with the relative minority that know how to design and implement good, solid SQL designs, but with the vast majority who use it as a shortcut: "I forgot about the item description. Oh well, I can just do a FETCH on the item master file. Oh wait, in some cases I need to update the standard price. Well, I'll change it to a SELECT FOR UPDATE. That was easy! I love not having to think about my database when I design my SQL programs! They can just grow and grow, and nobody needs to know!" How many abominations of this type have you seen? Especially in code "ported" from native RPG to SQL? Unfortunately, in my experience this has been the rule rather than the exception, because those who would use SQL as a shortcut are hardly likely to embrace Fred's concept of a fully thought-out up-front design. Anyway, my current final word <smirk> on the issue is that, if you're designing in Java, the persistence should be in the class, and the idea of a data source should be introduced, thereby allowing you to switch from performance (native client/server) to portability (JDBC) as required. Joe Pluta www.plutabrothers.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Buck Calabro > > >JDBC is the single technique most likely to > >cause the AS/400 to fail as a platform. > > Not being a guru and observing from the sidelines, I'm a bit worried about > this. My colleagues here and on various mailing lists all seem to want to > use JDBC since it's the standard way to access the DB. > > Is JDBC performance really that bad vs the competition?
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.