Hi Mad Andy (et al),
Thanks for the response. My, not always technically informed, clients want
Oracle. They read that they should in some trade rag somewhere. I would
like to promote open source solutions for something as generic as a
database. We meet in the middle with something that they feel has the
backing of someone they've heard of, and I'm willing to trade off propietary
implementation with fairly reasonable performance and licensing fees. My
company still makes prototypes with, and makes our clients aware of, the
other options (PostgreSQL and MySQL), but, well, see below...
Why SQL Server instead of PostgreSQL?
1) Ease of administration. The GUI on SQL Server makes table/view/stored
procedure creation/manipulation and backup administration very easy. The
monitoring tools and trace facilities are nice too.
2) Clients. Clients will swallow lots of open source options, and I
certainly push them, but for whatever reasons, they don't like open source
databases. I'll get to Oracle in a second.
3) Existing system. I've got a big-assed W2K box with piles o' RAM,
multiple processors, SCSI RAID, and all of my existing data on it. While I
could migrate to PostgreSQL or Oracle, it'd be much more work than just
figuring out how to handle the app server/bean side of things. Doing that,
in turn, would make it easier for me to separate data from logic, which
would make the option of migrating more viable eventually-- should I want
to.
4) Performance. PostgreSQL was a dog last time I tried it. Granted, that
was a while ago. I liked a lot of the concepts, and I'd like to keep trying
it out, but there were simply too many concessions to make vs. paying $1200
for SQL Server 7 and getting quite a nice DB for the money. Getting all
pedantic about Microsoft is naive in my book. I'll keep an eye on it, and
when features and performance stop being "in the next release," I'll sign
up.
Why not Oracle?
1) Larry.
2) I don't want to hire a full-time 6-figure DBA to maintain my fairly
simple databases simply because the software is absurdly arcane and tries to
have every feature ever conceived by man.
3) Two words: POWER UNITS (see the site)
4) To be legal, I'd need a $100,000 or so license. (to be fair, that's just
a result of #3) Is that some kind of joke?
5) I fought with keeping the listener alive long enough, that I don't care
to deal with it anymore.
6) $300/hr consultants.
7) Arrogant bastards, crappy support, monopolistic rip-off of the century,
etc.
OK, all that having been said, yup, we use the JDBC driver in a couple of
ways outside of jBoss. We even use it with ColdFusion as the app server
using CFOBJECTs written in Java. Works like a charm, other than some
occasional burps (which I'm pretty sure are unrelated.) But straight Java
to database connections (in applications) work just fine.
Clips from the start up look like this (assume all is normal):
...
[JDBC] Loaded JDBC-driver:JData2_0.sql.$Driver
...
[SpyderMQ] Initialized
javax.management.ReflectionException: The MBean class could not be loaded by
the s
pecified loader
at
com.sun.management.jmx.MBeanServerImpl.createMBean(MBeanServerImpl.java
:754)
at javax.management.loading.MLet.getMBeansFromURL(MLet.java:540)
at javax.management.loading.MLet.getMBeansFromURL(MLet.java:369)
at org.jboss.Main.<init>(Main.java:119)
at org.jboss.Main$1.run(Main.java:87)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at org.jboss.Main.main(Main.java:83)
[Simple Realm Mapping] Starting
...
Now, I get this regardless if I try according to the instructions on the
jBoss doc site or if I try the other recommendation to create a "pool" using
the jboss.jcml approach.
So, I guess I'm wondering if there's a more up-to-date how-to or if this is
just a bug.
Thanks,
Rian
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
