RE: Database language

[ADRIENE LIM <ab7155 at wayne dot edu>]

But what we had with Oracle Phase 1 was not 
really "everything" in terms of functionality and all types 
of data, according to my knowledge. (We just upgraded to 
Silver and haven't explored Oracle Phase 2 yet.) I do know 
that with our previous system had a Sybase backend, and we 
could restore a copy of our Sybase database on our test 
server ("refreshing" our test copy, in other words) in the 
matter of under two hours.  We have not been able to learn 
how to do this ourselves with our Oracle option yet.  If 
you're an Oracle site and you have figured this out, please 
let me know!

I had heard that it was the prohibitive cost of Oracle 
licensing that really made this option not so attractive for 
most customers, but with an open-source solution, I was 
thinking that perhaps the cost factor could be overcome and 
more of us would use this type of option, thus building in 
more reasons for the vendor to minimize any tradeoffs.   

- Adriene

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:54:20 +0800
>From: "Carolyn McDonald" <C dot McDonald at murdoch dot edu dot au>  
>Subject: RE: Database language  
>To: <mtruitt at uh dot edu>, "IUG INNOPAC List" 
<innopac at innopacusers dot org>
>
>Hi Marc,
>
>While all these things are true and valid, they "are" all 
available in
>the Oracle version - and regardless of whether you like 
oracle or the
>company, any move to this functionality would 
be "someone's" company.
>
>And while you are considering the improvements you would 
get with this
>functionality, don't forget the trade-offs you would have 
to make - you
>may find in the long run from bitter experience they are 
not worth it.
>I'm sure III would be happy to tell you the benefits of 
running their
>proprietary database.
>
>Carolyn
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org
>[mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of Marc 
Truitt
>Sent: 15 February 2005 7:46 AM
>To: IUG INNOPAC List
>Subject: Re: Database language
>
>
>hi steve,
>
>well, i've never really thought of myself as an 'IT 
bureaucrat' <grin>, 
>but here's my take...
>
>1)  an sql-compliant backend would be far more accessible 
for direct 
>querying by those of us who would like to link-to or build 
interfaces to
>
>local data outside the ILS;
>
>2)  an sql-compliant backend would be a far more flexible 
means of 
>extracting reporting data from my ILS than the present 
black box, aka 
>'create lists';
>
>3)  data in an sql-compliant backend is more portable and 
thus far more 
>likely (not guaranteed, but likely) to ease my migration 
headaches, come
>
>the day -- gasp! -- when i decide to pick up my marbles and 
go play in a
>
>different vendors ILS sandbox. i realize that it isn't 
III's job to make
>
>it easier for me to bail, but portability *does* matter 
nonetheless.
>
>i'm sure that if i thought about it for awhile, i could 
come up with 
>others; these are just off the top-o'my-head.
>
>hth,
>
>- m (aka 'IT bureaucrat') t
>
>-- 
>************************************************************
************
>*
>Marc Truitt
>Assistant Dean for Systems                      Voice  : 
713-743-8979
>University of Houston Libraries                 e-mail : 
mtruitt at uh dot edu
>114 University Libraries                        fax    : 
713-743-9811
>Houston, TX 77204-2000    [note new number!] -> cell   : 
713-201-0351
>
>
>"Well I left my happy home to see what I could find out
>I left my folk and friends with the aim to clear my mind out
>Well I hit the rowdy road and many kinds I met there
>Many stories told me of the way to get there ..."
>                                 -- Cat Stevens
>************************************************************
************
>*
>
>
>Metcalf, Steve wrote:
>> I'd be interested in hearing a bit about what the 
benefits would be.
>> My suspicion has been that this development is driven by 
IT
>> bureaucrats writing an sql-complicance requirement into 
RFPs as a
>> matter of policy.
>> 
>> Steve Metcalf The Evergreen State College
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: innopac-
bounces at innopacusers dot org 
>> [mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org]On Behalf Of 
Adriene Lim 
>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:20 PM To: 
mtruitt at uh dot edu; 'IUG
>> INNOPAC List' Subject: RE: Database language
>> 
>> 
>> I would LOVE this if it happened!  WSU could gain all of 
the benefits
>> of a fully functional, fully populated relational 
database, and using
>> SQL, without having to use the "Oracle option," if this 
were done.
>> 
>> - Adriene, WSU
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: innopac-
bounces at innopacusers dot org 
>> [mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of 
Marc Truitt 
>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:11 PM To: IUG INNOPAC 
List Subject:
>> Re: Database language
>> 
>> hi bill and zoltan,
>> 
>> has this ever been pushed as an enhancement request?  is 
there any
>> reason it could not be?
>> 
>> how about a virtual show-of-hands from those sites on 
this list that
>> would be seriously interested seeing Innovative migrate 
to an
>> open-source SQL-compliant back end?
>> 
>> UH would certainly support such an effort.
>> 
>> - mt
>> 
>> 
>> Bill Hudson wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Zoltan, I thought the same thing about the mysql 
migration after
>>> IUG last year,
>> 
>> but
>> 
>>> my sales rep checked for me and says that's not the 
case. There are
>>> 
>> 
>> numerous
>> 
>>> supporting databases in the system that are/will be 
converted, but
>>> the
>> 
>> core
>> 
>>> dbase will not be converted. I was not happy to hear 
that as we
>>> would love SQL compliance without having to pay for Mr. 
Ellison's
>>> sailing hobby.
>>> 
>>> If anyone has heard anything different from a reliable 
source, I
>>> would definitely like to know about it. Thanks, BH
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Bill Hudson, Manager Information Technology Services 
Library System
>>> of Lancaster County 1866 Colonial Village Lane, Suite 
107 
>>> Lancaster, PA 17601 V. 717.207.0500 F.717.207.0500
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: innopac-
bounces at innopacusers dot org
>>>> [mailto:innopac- bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of
>>>> zoltan dot tomory at mobot dot org Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 
3:08 PM 
>>>> To: innopac at innopacusers dot org Subject: RE: Database 
language
>>>> 
>>>> Future plans seem to be that Millennium will be 
converted to a
>>>> MySQL database based system over something like a five 
or ten
>>>> year timeframe, phasing out the existing proprietary
>>>> database/database language, if my recollections from 
IUG'04 are
>>>> accurate.
>>>> 
>>>> Writing their own database--that's gutsy! Changing a
>>>> database--equally gutsy!
>>>> 
>>>> One thing from the technical information was not clear 
to me: The
>>>> Java Virtual Machine is platform independent & runs on 
a variety
>>>> of platforms including Windows, Mac, and a bunch of 
others. So
>>>> how come the Java clients typical of Millennium don't 
do Mac? The
>>>> purpose of the JVM is to translate Java code to machine 
code of
>>>> whatever platform there exists a JVM for with complete 
integrity
>>>> & my understanding is that Sun, author of Java, has 
suffered to
>>>> keep it so.
>>>> 
>>>> Zoltan Tomory
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>--
>This message was distributed through the Innovative Users 
Group INNOPAC
>list
>Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
>Update your subscription options:
>http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac
>
>--
>This message was distributed through the Innovative Users 
Group INNOPAC list
>Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
>Update your subscription options: 
http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac