数据库或中间层的代码（CLR争议） [英] Code in the database or middle tier (the CLR controversy)
问题描述
关于何时将代码放入
数据库或中间层，似乎没有达成共识。在Oracle新闻组中对这个
进行了长时间的讨论（消息ID：
UL**************@nwrddc02.gnilink .net）。
在其他地方，有人讨论过Microsoft SQL Server 2005
添加CLR以支持C＃等语言的存储过程。对网络和讨论论坛的扫描发现了不同的意见
这个。
两位作者撰写的文章落在了
辩论的不同方面。
数据库的关键字
http://www.intelligententerprise.com...cleID=50500830
SOA，多层体系结构和数据库中的逻辑
http://www.sqlsummit.com/Articles/Lo...heDatabase.HTM
Joe Celko写了第一篇文章，但他的反对意见指向
Microsoft SQL Server 2005：
我在WWSUG.com上有一篇关于我多么厌恶CLR内容的文章
微软推出。
http：//blog.intelligententerprise.co...es/002419.html
" ;坏消息是SQL Server 2005将以CLR语言定义您自己的
聚合
函数。
消息ID： 41 ******** *****************@posting.google.com
IBM DB2和Oracle正在做同样的事情.NET CLR。这个
a是非问题还是所有三家公司都被误导了？
SA ***** @ netscape.net 写道：似乎没有就什么时候达成共识把代码放在
数据库或中间层。在Oracle新闻组中对此进行了长时间的讨论（消息ID：
UL**************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net）。
其他地方一直在讨论Microsoft SQL Server 2005
添加CLR以支持C＃等语言的存储过程。对网络和讨论论坛的扫描发现了对此的不同意见。
两位作者撰写的论文落在辩论的各个方面。
数据库的键
http：//www.intelligententerprise.com..cleid=50500830
SOA，多层体系结构和数据库中的逻辑
http://www.sqlsummit.com/Articles/Lo...heDatabase.HTM
Joe Celko撰写了第一篇文章，但他的反对意见指向了Microsoft SQL Server 2005：
我在WWSUG.com上有一篇关于如何撰写的文章我讨厌微软推出的CLR东西。
HTTP：// BLO g.intelligententerprise.co ... es / 002419.html
坏消息是，SQL Server 2005将为您定义自己的
聚合
功能用CLR语言编写。
消息ID： 41 ************************* @ posting.google.com
IBM DB2和Oracle正在使用.NET CLR做同样的事情。这是不是问题，还是三家公司都被误导了？
我不知道与另一方有什么关系。
第一：CLR是一项技术。它支持程序和
函数允许它在服务器上的位置。它不会强迫它比PL / SQL，Java，C，Cobol，....
第二：用户定义的聚合是DBMS的可扩展性选项。
_当需要该功能时，它最好放在引擎中
，因为DBMS可以在SMP和MPP中并行化聚合。
TEh App不是这个而不是将聚合物放在引擎中
会淹没网络。
干杯
Serge < br $>
-
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL编译器开发
IBM多伦多实验室
< SA ***** @ netscape.net>在消息中写道
news：11 ********************** @ g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com ...关于何时将代码放入
数据库或中间层，似乎没有达成共识。在Oracle新闻组中对此进行了长时间的讨论（消息ID：
UL**************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net）。
如果我有时间，我会审查所有这些链接......但我带走的是这个...
智能使用CLR将是一个天赐之物。
但是，就像程序程序员来到SQL并编写循环，游标，
等，用错误的心态，它是性能的潜在灾难，
数据完整性等。
看看它是如何被使用的将会很有趣。
其他地方一直在讨论Microsoft SQL Server 2005
添加CLR以支持C＃等语言的存储过程。对网络和讨论论坛的扫描发现了对此的不同意见。
两位作者撰写的论文落在辩论的各个方面。
数据库的键
http：//www.intelligententerprise.com..cleid=50500830
SOA，多层体系结构和数据库中的逻辑
http://www.sqlsummit.com/Articles/Lo...heDatabase.HTM
Joe Celko撰写了第一篇文章，但他的反对意见指向了Microsoft SQL Server 2005：
我在WWSUG.com上有一篇关于如何撰写的文章我讨厌微软推出的CLR东西。
HTTP：// BLO g.intelligententerprise.co ... es / 002419.html
坏消息是，SQL Server 2005将为您定义自己的
聚合
功能用CLR语言编写。
消息ID： 41 ************************* @ posting.google.com
IBM DB2和Oracle正在使用.NET CLR做同样的事情。这是不是问题还是三家公司都被误导了？
Greg D. Moore（Strider）写道：< SA ***** @ netscape.net>在消息中写道
新闻：11 ********************** @ g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com ...关于何时将代码放入
数据库或中间层，似乎没有达成共识。在Oracle新闻组中对此进行了长时间的讨论（消息ID：
UL ************** @ nwrddc02.gnilink.net）。
如果我有时间，我会审查所有这些链接...但我带走的是这个...
智能地使用，CLR将是天赐之物。 / blockquote>
[snip]
我们都注定了，不是吗？ - |
我的自己采取的实际上非常相似。我认为它有潜力。它没有*使用* b $ b，但危险在于较少
经历过会遇到一个问题，他们无法在SQL中轻易解决，
并决定选择BFI而不是去写好书，或者
在usenet上提出一个智能问题（我的两个主要来源
学习）
就个人而言，我很期待它，虽然我个人不觉得
他们已经走得足够了:-)嘿，你认为他们是否打开了SQL服务器内部和CLR之间的互操作性，这样就可以了。
可以将T-SQL扩展到完整的SQL-99（或者我们选择的任何标准
），某些人仍会反对吗？
There doesn''t seem to be consensus about when to put code in the
database or in the middle tier. There was a long discussion about this
in an Oracle newsgroup (message ID:
UL**************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net).
Elsewhere there''s been discussion about Microsoft SQL Server 2005
adding the CLR to support stored procedures in languages such as C#. A
scan of the Web and discussion forums finds differing opinions about
this.
Two authors have written articles that fall on different sides of the
debate.
"Keys to the Database"
http://www.intelligententerprise.com...cleID=50500830
"SOA, Multi-Tier Architectures and Logic in the Database"
http://www.sqlsummit.com/Articles/Lo...heDatabase.HTM
Joe Celko wrote the first article, but his objections point to
Microsoft SQL Server 2005:
"I have an article at WWSUG.com on how much I hate the CLR stuff that
Microsoft is putting out."
http://blog.intelligententerprise.co...es/002419.html
"The bad news is that SQL Server 2005 will you define your own
aggregate
functions in a CLR language."
Message id: 41*************************@posting.google.com
IBM DB2 and Oracle are doing the same thing with the .NET CLR. Is this
a non-issue or are all three companies misguided?
解决方案SA*****@netscape.net wrote:There doesn''t seem to be consensus about when to put code in the
database or in the middle tier. There was a long discussion about this
in an Oracle newsgroup (message ID:
UL**************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net).
Elsewhere there''s been discussion about Microsoft SQL Server 2005
adding the CLR to support stored procedures in languages such as C#. A
scan of the Web and discussion forums finds differing opinions about
this.
Two authors have written articles that fall on different sides of the
debate.
"Keys to the Database"
http://www.intelligententerprise.com...cleID=50500830
"SOA, Multi-Tier Architectures and Logic in the Database"
http://www.sqlsummit.com/Articles/Lo...heDatabase.HTM
Joe Celko wrote the first article, but his objections point to
Microsoft SQL Server 2005:
"I have an article at WWSUG.com on how much I hate the CLR stuff that
Microsoft is putting out."
http://blog.intelligententerprise.co...es/002419.html
"The bad news is that SQL Server 2005 will you define your own
aggregate
functions in a CLR language."
Message id: 41*************************@posting.google.com
IBM DB2 and Oracle are doing the same thing with the .NET CLR. Is this
a non-issue or are all three companies misguided?
I don''t see what one has to do with the other.
First: CLR is a piece of technology. It''s support for procedures and
functions allows for it''s placement on the server. It doesn''t force it
anymore than PL/SQL, Java, C, Cobol, ....
Second: User defined aggregates are an extensibility option for DBMS.
_When_ the function is needed then it is better placed in the engine
because the DBMS can parallelize the aggregation in both SMP and MPP.
TEh App cann not this and not placing teh aggregation in the engine
will swamp the network.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
<SA*****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...There doesn''t seem to be consensus about when to put code in the
database or in the middle tier. There was a long discussion about this
in an Oracle newsgroup (message ID:
UL**************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net).
If I have time I''ll review all these links... but my take away is this...
Used intelligently, CLR will be a godsend.
But, like procedural programmers coming to SQL and writing loops, cursors,
etc, with the wrong mindset, it is a potential disaster for performance,
data integrity, etc.
It''ll be interesting to see how it''s used.
Elsewhere there''s been discussion about Microsoft SQL Server 2005
adding the CLR to support stored procedures in languages such as C#. A
scan of the Web and discussion forums finds differing opinions about
this.
Two authors have written articles that fall on different sides of the
debate.
"Keys to the Database"
http://www.intelligententerprise.com...cleID=50500830
"SOA, Multi-Tier Architectures and Logic in the Database"
http://www.sqlsummit.com/Articles/Lo...heDatabase.HTM
Joe Celko wrote the first article, but his objections point to
Microsoft SQL Server 2005:
"I have an article at WWSUG.com on how much I hate the CLR stuff that
Microsoft is putting out."
http://blog.intelligententerprise.co...es/002419.html
"The bad news is that SQL Server 2005 will you define your own
aggregate
functions in a CLR language."
Message id: 41*************************@posting.google.com
IBM DB2 and Oracle are doing the same thing with the .NET CLR. Is this
a non-issue or are all three companies misguided?
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:<SA*****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...There doesn''t seem to be consensus about when to put code in the
database or in the middle tier. There was a long discussion about this
in an Oracle newsgroup (message ID:
UL**************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net).
If I have time I''ll review all these links... but my take away is this...
Used intelligently, CLR will be a godsend.
[snip]
We''re all doomed, aren''t we :-|
My own take is actually pretty similar. I think it has potential. It
doesn''t *have* to be used, but the danger is that the "less
experienced" will encounter a problem they cannot solve easily in SQL,
and decide to go for BFI instead of either going to a good book, or
asking an intelligent question on usenet (my two main sources of
learning)
Personally, I''m looking forward to it, although I personally don''t feel
they''ve gone far enough :-) Hey, do you suppose if they opened up the
interoperability between SQL server internals and the CLR, such that it
was possible to augment T-SQL up to full SQL-99 (or whatever standard
we chose) compliance, certain people would still object?
这篇关于数据库或中间层的代码（CLR争议）的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
