RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-20 Thread Dawn M. Wolthuis
p.com Take and give some delight today. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Colquhoun Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:57 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2) Hi John, At 11:33 PM 19/04/2004

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-20 Thread Robert Colquhoun
Hi John, At 11:33 PM 19/04/2004, Jon Wells wrote: Sounds a bit like the Coyote Web Server [ http://coyote.easyco.com/ ] This functionality would be a great thing to add to the Maverick project. You can do this today via the basic compiler which can inherit(in a java/OO sense) functionality into

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-19 Thread Jon Wells
Sounds a bit like the Coyote Web Server [ http://coyote.easyco.com/ ] This functionality would be a great thing to add to the Maverick project. At 07:41 AM 4/17/2004, you wrote: That's my point. In one sense I see what Will means. There are a lot of U2 shops out there that are happy as can be w

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-18 Thread Ross Ferris
004 8:21 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2) > >And of course it's not self-serving to state that a web presence is itself >necessary in order to be "forward thinking" . I mean since you >offer >a product that does that

Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-17 Thread FFT2001
And of course it's not self-serving to state that a web presence is itself necessary in order to be "forward thinking" . I mean since you offer a product that does that Now to me, forward thinking might involve more robust use of log files, audit files, transactions and rollback, backgr

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-17 Thread Ross Ferris
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 3:53 AM >To: U2 Users Discussion List >Subject: Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2) > > I'm just not seeing a great demand for this sort of thing from the >majority 10 to 100 user bus

[ot] RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-17 Thread Ross Ferris
u out a test drive CD if you like. Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage - an Evolution in Software Development >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Daly, Mark >Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 3:10 AM >To: 'U2 Users Disc

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-17 Thread Daly, Mark
: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2) I wouldn't consider using 1NF data for new web services efforts if you don't have to -- why to mess around with mapping to and from flat tables? U2 is still old technology but in some ways it is cl

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-16 Thread Dawn M. Wolthuis
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daly, Mark Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 12:10 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2) Well no, not really. I was thinking more in the line of "New application development that would like to provide the abil

Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-16 Thread FFT2001
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2) > > > In a message dated 4/15/2004 4:37:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Without this

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-16 Thread Daly, Mark
n internal application integration. Being able to publish web services etc. etc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2) In a message dated 4/15/2004

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-16 Thread Daly, Mark
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2) In a message dated 4/15/2004 4:37:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > With

Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-16 Thread FFT2001
In a message dated 4/15/2004 4:37:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Without this ability, I see no reason why anyone would commence new > application development on the U2 platform. Since you will always require > another application server (Websphere, Tomcat, Bea, Jboss,

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-15 Thread Daly, Mark
With Database decoupling, the U2 platform basically becomes an application server. What would be REALLY cool, is if the U2 application server provided the same functionality as Tomcat, for example. This would allow Http requests to be sent to the U2 server for a response. Allow it to act as a Soa

Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

2004-04-14 Thread Clif Oliver
I did not mean to kill the part of the discussion that was being held under the previous Subject line that was talking about other-than-U2 datastores in a U2 environment. I seem to have caused some confusion with my end-of-thread notice under that subject line. I was only referring to respondin