Conference 44.370::system_management

    RDB 3.0-a scheduled for installation Wed 10th May.
    No problems with data compatibility are expected but it's best to take
    a backup of your databases just in case.

    Errrrm, G'Day Jerry,
    
    I have since also noticed that when V3.0-0 was installed, the SQL
    kit (a separate kit, but a bundled product) was not installed with
    Rdb.  
    
    Will SQL be installed with V3.0A?  We really should have this available
    - corporate are recommending this for all future DB development,
    so we need to be able to evaluate it's use.  Also, defining an Rdb
    database with SQL is currently the only supported way of completely
    bypassing CDD/Plus - which, as I'm sure you are aware, can have
    considerable performance benefits.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Glenn

re .2

    >I have since also noticed that when V3.0-0 was installed, the SQL
    >kit (a separate kit, but a bundled product) was not installed with
    >Rdb.  

Glenn, I'm a bit confused - but there again, I'm no VMS expert!

Are you implying that SQL is bundled in with RDB, and so should be
re-installed simultaneously? If so, it's the first I've heard of it,
and SQL is not scheduled to be re-installed with RDB V3.0A.

    >corporate are recommending this for all future DB development,

Cor!! There's a sweeping statement! I wonder where I have heard similar
ones in the past......

Peter.

    Peter,
    

        'tis true. RDO is to suffer no further development, although
    it will continue to exist with RDB V3. SQL is the recommended database
    query language for RDB now. If you wish to officially confirm this,
    you could always contact the SQL product manager, Deb Wasserman,
    on NOVA::WASSERMAN.
    
    SQL is bundled with RDB V3 in the sense that the PAK for RDB V3
    also covers SQL. However, SQL is available in a seperate kit and
    is not present in the RDB savesets.
    
    It would be silly for any new development using RDB not to use SQL.
    This being the case, it would seem imperative that SQL is actually
    available on the same machines that RDB V3 is installed. 
    
    
    
    				Jamie.    
    

Hi Peter,

I think Jamie had covered the SQL issues here fairly well.  You could
also check with the Rdb product manager Steve NOVA::HORN (or Lynn Darnton
should also know I guess).

>Are you implying that SQL is bundled in with RDB, and so should be
>re-installed simultaneously? If so, it's the first I've heard of it, 
>and SQL is not scheduled to be re-installed with RDB V3.0A. 

Yup, this is certainly true - this happened with Rdb V3 - at the same time
they decided to bundle an Rdb run-time license with VMS.  I think the
confusion arrives because even though they are bundled together, at
the moment they still come on separate media for the customer.  However,
when you order the doc set it all comes together!
     
>    >corporate are recommending this for all future DB development,

>Cor!! There's a sweeping statement! I wonder where I have heard similar
>ones in the past......

I'm not quite sure what you mean here - do you mean that corporate may
change their mind tomorrow?  If you read the DSTAR journals, the DIS group
is also making the same recommendations.  BUT, it is true that _my_
statement was a bit general - for DB read, Rdb.  It's all part of this
"what we recommend to our customers we should also do" policy.  I'm not a
fan - I don't like SQL anywhere near as much as RDML, but it's the way the
wind is blowing..... 

Hope this clarifies things a bit,

Cheers,

Glenn
                    

re .4;

Thanks for the info, Jamie.

The problem at the moment is that SQL does not appear to be an "officially
approved" product for production use; it isn't mentioned in any of the
EASE/VMS v5.n documentation I've got. It also doesn't seem to be
supported by European I.S., as it isn't in the VTX list out of Valbonne.

I'll raise this with the appropriate group in Ferney Voltaire, and
let you know the response.

(Don't forget there is often a world of difference between "Corporate
 Engineering recommendations", "European I.S. recommendations", and
 "what you really need [or want] to do"...)

Peter.

Hmm - we had a little collision just there!

re .5

>I'm not quite sure what you mean here - do you mean that corporate may
>change their mind tomorrow?  If you read the DSTAR journals, the DIS group
>is also making the same recommendations.  

No; I don't mean corporate may change their minds (but of course they might!)
I simply mean that I've seen these bandwagons before, and I've seen the
problems where _inappropriate_ implementations of those bandwagons can
cause horrendous problems.

And I'm certainly not implying that you are leaping on to it willy nilly!

Don't forget tat DSTAR and DIS are U.S. publications/organisations, and
 _may not_  necessarily be relevant for Europe.

Peter (who is only concerned with the supportability of whatever route
is chosen, 'cos I've been caught out in the past, and so may well
be super sensitive to it!)

    Re .6
    
    I wouldn't rely too much on the VTX list out of Valbonne, it's pretty
    out of date, and even when you do send them updates, they're either
    not done, or take ages.
    
    Just thought I'd get in my two-penneth
    
    Rob

>Peter (who is only concerned with the supportability of whatever route
>is chosen, 'cos I've been caught out in the past, and so may well
>be super sensitive to it!)

Yeah, I agree with you there.  I personally do _not_ like what I've seen
of the SQL syntax I've seen.  However, I've been getting the "use SQL"
message now so hard & so long that I've got to the stage where I feel
that "I really better have a look at it", just in case they're right.

Thats all I want to do right now - evaluate the use of SQL - for which
we need it installed, to "have a play" so to speak.

The issue you raise about EASE is obviously a very important one &
hopefully we can get it cleared up before anyone decides to go ahead
with any real development.

Thanks for your help,

Glenn  

fair enough then...

I'll get the wheels movinbg to get SQL installed on FUTURS. I'll update
here when I've got the kit and documentation available.

When you've had a chance to evaluate it, if you reckon you want to
use it in your production systems, I'll get the relevant processes in
place so the kit is available from Release Management, and just add
it to your "pre-requisites" list for your applications.

So, watch this space....

Peter.

Well, chaps, I've just checked, and SQL is not available as a
network kit.

So, unless you (or one of your friends) has a kit on them, we'll
have to either order it from SDC. or wait for the CD kits to come....

Peter.

Hi Peter,

>                     -< Don't hold your breath, though.. >-
>
>Well, chaps, I've just checked, and SQL is not available as a
>network kit.

That's interesting!  I wonder where you got your Rdb V3.0A kit from?
If you get your Rdb kit from the development group (they have a kits
facility) it comes together with SQL kits included - as I mentioned before,
they are now bundled together.  In fact Steve Draper has both running
on his MicroVAX.  Of course, you must do 2 installations, even though
it all comes shipped together.

>So, unless you (or one of your friends) has a kit on them, we'll
>have to either order it from SDC. or wait for the CD kits to come....

Ask, and ye shall receive!  (aw shucks, just 'cause yer all such grate
guys!).  You can pick up an SQL V2.0 kit from:

CURRNT::OFW$$D_WRK:SQLPRG020.* 

Hope this helps,

Glenn
                                                                   

re .12

>That's interesting!  I wonder where you got your Rdb V3.0A kit from?

There are some things it's best not to own up to!!

Seriously, it came from Ferney, where we can usually get all the
necessary kits to run whatever we need. (Some layered products
are in Valbonne).

Thanks for the offer of the kit, bit I've since laid my hands on one.
Anyway, the logical name translation aborts for me..

I'll get I.S. to install on FUTURS in the next couple of days.

>Peter.Ask, and ye shall receive!  (aw shucks, just 'cause yer all such grate
>guys!)

Umm, actually shouldn't that read "all such great guys", or did you spell it
the way you meant to.....

Peter.

>>Peter.Ask, and ye shall receive!  (aw shucks, just 'cause yer all such grate
>>guys!)
>
>Umm, actually shouldn't that read "all such great guys", or did you spell it
>the way you meant to.....

It's a real hassle trying to get an accent through on my typing - even
now I have m�lt�n�t��n�l characters :-{                       

I've now got an "SQLPRG020" kit, so I'll ask I.S. to install it on
FUTURS - watch out for the announcement. If you need documentation,
let me know.


Peter.

    Peter,
    
    Because SQL is bundled with RDB V3, the RDB documentation set
    actually contains an SQL manual (Re .5).
    
    There are currently two RDB V3 documentation sets available in Euro
    ADG to my knowledge.
    
    
    
    		Cheers,
    
    
    				Jamie.

Here is an extract of a mail from Valbonne:

>A very hasty reply from sunny (until recnetly) Utrecht...
>
>SQL bundled with Rdb/VMS, hence supported by us.

So we are OK from the support side from them - I guess the EASE issue
still needs to be resolved.

Cheers,

Glenn

Hello again,
	we (the consultants) now have a copy of RDB V3.0B and SQL V2.0B which
are mandatory updates to RDB V3.0A and SQL V2.0A. The release notes for RDB are
at CAROLE::RDBVMS030B.RELEASE_NOTES. Unless anyone has strong objections, RDB
(and SQL?) will be upgraded as soon as possible.

regards,

Andy

P.S.	On the SQL issue, Corporate Engineering are recommending to all
	their development groups that they use embeded SQL for portability
	across databases and operating systems. Just thought I would throw
	that in the cauldron :-).

P.P.S.	The RDB and SQL kits came from the RDB Engineering Group.

RDB V3.0-B will be installed on currnt and futurs as soon as possible.  Please
see the last note(s) for the reason.

	James Naylor.