Oracle Application Server
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jezuch Oct 10, 2006 3:48 PM EDT |
Hmmmm, doesn't Oracle offer an application server?... http://www.oracle.com/appserver/index.html It's "Based on a powerful and scalable J2EE server" [yes! Java! mmm!] so it's like a superset of what PHP has to offer. |
| dcparris Oct 10, 2006 4:11 PM EDT |
Unfortunately, the article doesn't say what kind of PHP solution vAudit considered, as compared to the Oracle solution. We just have no way of grasping what the real problem is. As I said in the article, vAudit may well have chosen what it thought was the best solution. Unfortunately, the article's author doesn't seem to know how to communicate that effectively. Titling the article as they did, they then failed to provide the answer to their own title. What Oracle solution, specifically, did vAudit choose? What PHP-based solutions did they examine in their acquisition process? How, exactly, was the PHP-based solution superior to a PHP-based solution? What did they do to find service vendors who could assist them in implementing a PHP-base solution? What does the author mean by "sporadic"? Is he implying that the service vendors offer sporadic service? If you can answer any of these questions, based on the article, I'll submit your name for the Congressional Medal of Honor, or at least to the ESP society. |
| bob Oct 10, 2006 5:07 PM EDT |
jezuch: I went back and re-read the article, and unless my browser's search feature is defective, there is not a single mention of Java, nor a single mention of Application Server, nor a single mention of J2EE. But I do see this: "vAudit uses an Oracle database" and this: "Staheli praises the scalability of Oracle's database". So Don's point stands; the article compared database with language. |
| jezuch Oct 11, 2006 2:31 AM EDT |
You're right and I haven't even read the article ;) It was two past midnight and I was tired, but I thought I should mention this... |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2006 3:04 AM EDT |
bob - Don's point does not stand except to say that the article is terrible. For perspective, I know and work with a number of people in real estate related activities, each of whom will happily tell you that his or her database is the most important business tool he or she possesses. None of them - not a single one - will be talking about the database manager. In an abstract sense, they might mean the data, but, most often they mean the application that let's them enter and retrieve it. Oracle has long been in ERP and they now own Peoplesoft. Wouldn't shock me in the least to learn that this company bought a canned Oracle solution. Article sucks rocks. No, that's not sufficient. Bites 'em, chews 'em, and digests 'em. Might still be comparing apples and something from the apple family. |
| dcparris Oct 11, 2006 6:52 AM EDT |
> Don's point does not stand except to say that the article is terrible. Don's point is precisely that the article does a very poor job of explaining why the title is true. I'm not arguing that the Oracle solution wasn't the best one, or even that the PHP solution wasn't a comparable solution to the Oracle one. I'm arguing that the journalist who wrote the story should be ashamed of himself for communicating so freakin' poorly. In fact, his article is so poorly written, I have to wonder if it isn't just FUD. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!