Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dev!dgis!jkrueger
From: jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Asynchronous SQL
Message-ID: <799@dgis.dtic.dla.mil>
Date: 19 Mar 90 15:28:49 GMT
References: <2438@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <745@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <3510@infmx.UUCP> <779@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <3585@infmx.UUCP> <4990@rtech.rtech.com> <793@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <5030@rtech.rtech.com> <5045@rtech.rtech.com>
Organization: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Alexandria VA
Lines: 36

cmorris@ws2s.rtech.COM (Colin Morris) writes:

>Not exactly. Why force the applications programmer to reinvent the wheel by
>requiring _him_ to use OS or programming language features to provide the
>asynchronicity? If SQL itself provides an asynchronous interface, such support
>can be provided by the SQL vendor, thus freeing the applications programmer
>from such concerns.

The programmer reinvents the wheel precisely when
he doesn't use existing tools appropriate to the job.

Moving tools from one box to another is a good move when the new
arrangement offers some advantage over the old.  Moving all
one's tools into a single box seldom confers an advantage.

Out-of-order execution of work is a wonderful thing;
concerns for safety remain valid and necessary at the
present state of the art; no one is freed from this by
moving tools to a favorite box.

>Remember, also, that (i) most current programming languages are hardly bastions
>of parallelism, and (ii) application level parallelism often demands a 
>process-rich environment:- don't assume that all broadly used operating systems
>provide such an environment. 

If you haven't got the right tools you will indeed find yourself at
a disadvantage when you try to do the job.  This has nothing to do
with how many impoverished tools have been sold in the past.  The
good news is that some of them can be retrofitted to some extent.
You might say your company is in this business :-)

-- Jon
-- 
Jonathan Krueger    jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil   uunet!dgis!jkrueger
The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest
and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.