Forum OpenACS Development: Re: OACS 6 and beyond
FWIW I completely agree with you that it's unacceptable for programmers to be breaking the database they don't care about. And I would include the entire codebase, not just the core. IMHO as long as the project officially supports both databases it damn well ought to support them both. This "oh, if you want to use that package you have to clean up someone else's mess first" stuff is just not right.
However, having said that, I also recognize that dual-database support is not happening and is not going to happen. The only way it will ever happen is if we have an iron-fisted gatekeeper who can require it, and we're never going to have that. So, I would prefer to see Oracle support dropped entirely than to have the "we sorta do and we sorta don't" situation we have today. I think it makes the project seem sloppy and unprofessional.
furfly has one major client, the Army Corps of Engineers, who requires Oracle, so this is going to be painful for us and we might be interested in participating in some sort of split. It would probably make sense to use a codebase that's maintained by and for people using Oracle and choose to port over changes that we really want, rather than have to fix the entire thing each time we want to set up a new site or upgrade an old one.
Perhaps a split may not be such a bad thing, as I mentioned I don't think that the fact that something is 'OpenACS based' carries a lot of weight anyway. My hunch is that the reason people use it is because its a useful tool and it would continue to be so regardless of the size of the community. Its a tool I'd like to be able to keep in my kitbag (even if its a specialist tool)
The pg community seems annoyed at having to support oracle, and thats probably natural. If you're using PG you are unlikely to be solving any serious problems anyway so perhaps the gain from Oracle is seemingly small.
Anyway, lets face it, as you say, the current community hardly looks professional which has probably hampered OpenACS in the enterprise environment anyway.
Ok, here's my suggestion. Lets just make it a clean break. A new name, a new site, and a new focus (i.e. not just building wesites).
The existing oracle users will have an uncluttered environment in which to support their product and perhaps it will find a new lease of life.
If not, well, it didn't really cost much anyway ...
And besides I think OraACS has some opportunities around agility, testing, integration, web services and so forth.. without the contraints of PG we can actually START TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ORACLE. We'd get things like
Distributed computing (with 10g)
Real marketing. Oracle has clout, PG has enthusiasts.
all for FREE. We could actually massively increase what we can do by dropping PG support. I think the community has missed the point. All the concessions over the past few years have been the other way around. It PG that has compromised ACS not the other way around...
You can now develop with Oracle for free. Its your customers that pay for it.. not you.
and we could stop this nonsense of trying to move everything from the database into the scripts.
and stop worrying about that horrid .xql business, query dispatcher and so on..
we could *really* take advantage of being able to use Oracle specifics.
And top of my list we could support using Oracle result sets and Object Types.
And I could use a proper database that I can employ people to use, that companies understand and trust and that actually appeals to management...
after all, originally the Greenspun drive was to make use of the database, not hide from it.
The future's bright, the future's Oracle.
I think the community has missed the point. All the concessions over the past few years have been the other way around. It PG that has compromised ACS not the other way around...Umm ... if it weren't for PG the OpenACS project would've never started and you and I would've never met. Nice to see what you think of us "hobbyists". Yeah, I have an idyllic career. That's why I'm so broke I'm deeply in debt and can barely meet expenses. It's because I've been dumb enough to spend significant chunks of my life working on code for free so that you can: 1. make money off it 2. insult me while doing it Nice, Simon. Nice.
And top of my list we could support using Oracle result setsWhen did Oracle start supporting result sets? Does 8i support them? If not, listen to people scream when we suggest dropping 8i support!
BTW PG has supported functions returning result sets for so long I don't even remember which version introduced it...