|
> Would you be willing to take one that didn't have all the JDBC bells and > whistles? That is, one that simply did the basic SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT and > DELETE, without pooled connections, prepared statements and scrollable > cursors? Because in that case I have to believe that basic JDBC support is > doable without a whole lot of effort. Absolutely! Thus far, most of my needs to access ODBC databases have been on a smaller scale. Such as give a user Web Access to place a work order request to our MS Access Database tracking system, inquire into the Phone database or Batch load iSeries data to/from the PC applications... etc. And possibly in an Open Source environment, some of these bells and whistles would possibly be added in time. I've posted on this subject a few times on different forums or news groups and have had people contact me months later asking if I found a solution to this problem. Therefore I would think that this would be something that would be used by many. Thanks, Don McIntyre ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:25 PM Subject: Generic iSeries JDBC Interface > > From: Don McIntyre > > > > Amen, Joe, I agree, but your preaching to the Choir. I have > > been trying to > > get them (here) to standardize to the iSeries but am not in control here. > (...) > > Our User > > departments are allowed (not supposed to but will anyway) to run amuck and > > sometimes purchase systems without IT approval, but we're (IT) still > > responsible to maintain and interface into our enterprise systems. > > My deepest sympathies. What a horribly untenable position to be in. > > > > > Hmmm. That's a real thought. A Type 4 JDBC driver whose sole > > > purpose is to > > > talk to a Windows ODBC client. Verrrrrrrrrrrry interesting... > > > > Joe, send me an order form, I want to get my order in for your new Type 4 > > JDBC driver that will access any Windows ODBC client. > > This is currently beyond my technical ability at this time. I'm > > an old 20+ > > year RPG'er that began learning all this fun new technology about 2+ years > > ago. (and by the way, I agree with you on deployment complexity for > > WebSphere :) > > Would you be willing to take one that didn't have all the JDBC bells and > whistles? That is, one that simply did the basic SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT and > DELETE, without pooled connections, prepared statements and scrollable > cursors? Because in that case I have to believe that basic JDBC support is > doable without a whole lot of effort. > > Seriously, it would be a reasonable addition to JTOpen, if nothing else. It > would be a straight JDBC proxy, with the JDBC driver on the iSeries passing > the requests directly to a JDBC proxy on the Windows box. The JDBC-W proxy > would then be able to take advantage of all the ODBC drivers currently out > there using the simple Type 1 JDBC/ODBC bridge classes. > > It wouldn't be fast, but it would be really flexible. > > It could even be an Eclipse plug-in <grin>. > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
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.