Path: utzoo!attcan!ncrcan!becker!geac!jtsv16!uunet!viusys!rwb
From: rwb@viusys.uucp (Rick Butland)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Oracle/OCI
Message-ID: <1989Nov17.124316.15019@viusys.uucp>
Date: 17 Nov 89 12:43:16 GMT
References: <13485@hercules.csl.sri.com>
Reply-To: rwb@viusys.UUCP (Rick Butland)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unisys DPO
Lines: 24

In article <13485@hercules.csl.sri.com> tamaru@csl.sri.com (Ann Tamaru) writes:
>Does anyone out there still actively use Oracle's OCI (Oracle Call Interface)
>for their application development?  We are currently debating on whether to
>use this programmatic interface or the "newer" Pro*C interface (embedded SQL).
>The former is favorable due to its flexibility (and possibly more efficient?),
>but the latter seems quicker to develop programs with.  Also, it seems that
>the latter has better technical support coverage, which leads me to think that
>OCI may be phased out in the near future...?
>
Obviously I don't speak for Oracle, but I've heard that OCI will be phased out
when the precompiler interface (Pro*C) is as capable as the OCI.  I really
don't have any reason to disbelieve that as supporting two different products
with essentially the same function is a waste.  Personally, I've always 
recommended to my customers that they use the Pro*C interface for the 
reasons that you cite, namely better technical support, and the ease-of-use
considerations.  If they ever encounter a situation where they need some
functionality that only OCI can provide, then learn and use OCI to fulfill that
need.  I think that Pro*C covers most requirements.  As for efficiency, you're
probably right, I'd tend to believe that OCI is more efficient than Pro*C, but
I really haven't evaluated that in any depth.  I personally feel that, in most 
cases, the efficiency (possibly) lost is more than made up for by the gains in 
programmer productivity.  CPU time is cheap, programmer's time is not.

Rick