Re: fun in redmond [OT]

* Brent R. Matzelle (bmatzelle(at)yahoo(dot)com) [010926 10:05]:
> --- wsheldah(at)lexmark(dot)com wrote:
> > What was wrong with JDBC::ODBC? I don't use Java, but I
> > thought this solution
> > was out there for a while already? Just not db-specific
> > enough for them?
>
> It's not that anything is wrong with it necessarily. But
> JDBC::ODBC is a DB abstraction layer on top of a DB abstraction
> layer, which loads on some overhead. I would think that MS is
> trying to do away with those performance concerns and infiltrate
> more Java shops through the back end (pun intended).

Actually, there are rather serious issues with the JDBC to ODBC
bridge, which is why you'll discover that it's use has been
deprecated for years, and considered unsupported. Among the
problems are lack of thread safety, memory leaks, and extreme
inefficiency in handling largish operations.

In short, it's a toy, useless for anything except prototyping.
Which is why there was/is a sizable market for aftermarket JDBC
drivers.

-Brad