Sebastian Zickau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When there are different Databases (e.g. Informix, Postgres, Oracle) > behind nested Sequoia-Controllers,
Please note that you don't need to nest controllers to have different DBMS; if I understand you correctly these are two unrelated issues. > is the sequoia-jdbc-driver together > with the other underlying jdbc-drivers be able to react properly to > any request? "to react" is a bit emphasized... the drivers' job is just to forward the requests to the next link and the results on the way back. > If I understand the JDBC-Concept right, you have to use different > requests depending on the underlying database. Is that correct? Maybe not. The JDBC "concept" is ODBC but for Java. You may find more "conceptual" documentation by looking for ODBC than for JDBC, since the JDBC guys did not bother to do a search/replace in the existing literature to re-explain the same concept. The ODBC/JDBC concept is to make one step towards DBMS independence, by getting rid of such interfaces: <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/libpq.html> But this is only ONE step, since it does consider at all standardization of the SQL request strings for instance. For those, you have to check standards like SQL92, SQL99, etc. > Is it possible for the Sequoia-JDBC-driver to sum up all the different > queries and use the given db-drivers (Postgres, Informix, Oracle) to > present to the connection-URL only one interface? Yes, as long as you write only "standard" SQL, which does not really exist in practice. _______________________________________________ Sequoia mailing list Sequoia@lists.forge.continuent.org https://forge.continuent.org/mailman/listinfo/sequoia
