cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Siebel.
[EMAIL P
You'd almost have to be God to fix it.it consists of 1000s of tables.
It took me 2 weeks to reverse into Designer. My customer is not welling to
pay for the time to fix the design.
"Mohan, Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@fatcity.com on 11/29/2001 04:17:58 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Dick,
question for yaif you "owned" Siebel, lock, stock and barrel,
what would you do?
1) Fix and switch ALL RI to the database ( oracle and ms and ibm and others)
2) Just fix it where it is broken, but leave it in the app itself
3) leave it out but publish a tech spec document telling user
Dennis,
You ought to be a sales droid! That was a perfectly worded reply and in
MANY instances I'll agree with you. The ease or of lack thereof in
administering an application is very often decided on by damagement by whether
or not they need a dedicated/specialized resource to handle it.
Dennis,
Maybe I'm naive, or I'm giving too much credit to those making the purchase,
but I feel that for applications the size and cost of most ERPs you could
market them using features such as stability and data integrity along with
the bells and whistles. A cleaner schema would also make it eas
Damn. I've been wracking my brain all day trying to figure out how to say
this.
Thanks, Dennis.
--Walt Weaver
Bozeman, Montana
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 1:55 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Henry - The issue isn't the major RDBMS vendors, altho
Henry - The issue isn't the major RDBMS vendors, although there can be
interesting variations among them when it comes to how RI is implemented.
Most successful ERP packages have been around for a number of years, so they
have had to be available on many platforms. On some of those platforms the
p
Sounds like the path NAI's predecessor took with Support Magic. WHAT A MESS
Dick Goulet
Off to buy a new shovel, wonder why?
Reply Separator
Author: "Mark Leith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11/29/2001 8:45 AM
Another good one is when they change
Another good one is when they change the application from flat files to an
RDBMS.. And then continue to forget all about relational database theory..
Love it!!
-Original Message-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 November 2001 14:50
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Henry,
I am so
Just curious, but which of the major RDBMSs don't have RI?
Henry
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:55 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Another factor is that when RI was first introduced, people tended to
overuse it and then performance was bad. I don't
Title: RE: Siebel - ODB.
Of
course a well designed database should (??!!) be used by multiple applications.
So ideally, constraints which are data driven (long term) would be in the
database, and constraints which are application driven (business rules) would
reside in the application. But
Another factor is that when RI was first introduced, people tended to
overuse it and then performance was bad. I don't think this is such a
problem today, but I think many ERP packages were either developed before RI
was common to all SQL databases, or were discouraged by the initial
problems. But
Title: RE: Siebel - ODB.
Lisa,
One
arguement I lost regarding business rules (foreign keys) in the application,
rather than in the database was that it made the application "database
independent", not relying on database tools that might exist in one database but
not another.
I seem to remember Ralph Kimball writing in one of his DW books that the
RI and constraints should be enforced in the app layer as well. However
I might be wrong (once this year isn't too bad, eh?) ;-P
Scott Shafer
San Antonio, TX
Henry Poras wrote:
>
> That is probably true to an extent but
That is probably true to an extent but it doesn't explain some of the messes
I've seen.
Henry
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:14 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I have heard that they do this on purpose because their products have to be
RDBMS neutral
Title: RE: Siebel - ODB.
Why implement it in the database when you can write more bloated, more complex code? Databases don't work anyway. It also gives us a chance to issue more patches.
I have NEVER understood why some people take the angle of not letting the database do what
I have heard that they do this on purpose because their products have to be
RDBMS neutral. They have to work on RDBMS's that don't have built-in RI.
Tom Terrian
Oracle DBA
WPAFB - DAASC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
937-656-3844
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:46 PM
To: M
Does anybody else get the same feeling as me that it is not that vendors are
ignoring proper data models, they don't even know what they are.
Henry
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:14 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Unfortunately it's the case way too
Unfortunately it's the case way too often. Even at the enlightened place
where I work, our RI is done at the application level.
Not much I can do about it. Our development is done on MySQL and then
"ported" to Oracle.
--Walt Weaver
Bozeman, Montana, USA
-Original Message-
Sent: Wedne
BAH!! These bloody application providers leaving the integrity to their
bloody applications instead of leaving it in it's rightful place in the
database!!! Makes my life 10 times harder!!! Got no consideration at all
have they?
:P
Thanks!
Mark
-Original Message-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S
We use Siebel and no it does NOT have RI.
"Mark Leith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@fatcity.com on 11/28/2001 10:56:07 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Hi Gang,
Does anybody use Siebel - I bel
21 matches
Mail list logo
