Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!amdahl!rtech!ws2s!cmorris
From: cmorris@ws2s.rtech.COM (Colin Morris)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: open server/client architectures
Summary: RPC versus Connection Based
Message-ID: <4467@rtech.rtech.com>
Date: 12 Jan 90 18:36:52 GMT
References: <1988@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu> <2339@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Sender: news@rtech.rtech.com
Reply-To: cmorris@ws2s.UUCP (Colin Morris)
Distribution: na
Organization: Ingres Corporation, Alameda CA 94501
Lines: 27

In article <2339@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> randys@otl.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Randy Smerik) writes:
>In article <1988@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu> paulf@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (paul friberg) writes:
>>
>>
>>Does anyone have a feeling for where lies a standard in terms of 
>>interfaces to SQL servers?  I understand that Sybase is trying to 
>>set a standard with OSF by calling its db_library() an Open Client

I believe OSF has postponed (cancelled?) a request for technology for
database interconnect technology. The reasons given were to do with funding 
and potential conflict with the SQL Access Group (see below). 

> There are two efforts underway.  One concentrates on the protocol across
> the wire:  ISO OSI-RDA.  The other is dedicated to advancing ISO OSI-RDA as
> well as supplying the needed application interfaces: the SQL Access Group.

My understanding is that the Sybase db_library is an RPC machanism and is
not connection oriented. ISO RDA is connection oriented and based upon the
ISO Remote Operations mechanism. Was this why Sybase chose not to participate
in the SQL Access Group? Anybody from Sybase care to correct and/or comment?



----
Colin Morris,                        cmorris@rtech.com
Ingres Corp.,
Alameda, California.