Re: Samplclnt example in MDAC 2.8: My Story
- From: "Michael Skelton" <mskelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:00:51 -0500
I was interested in exploring OLE DB's capabilities as a data consumer
technology, but from everything I'm hearing, it's best served as a mechanism
for exposing data sources (e.g. writing your own provider for .CSV files).
The message is, leave data reading to ODBC; it's a mature technology, but
sometimes newer isn't necessarily better!
-Michael
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9712E65AE5C69Yazorman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Michael Skelton (mskelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
>> Sounds great. My question to you would be, why is Microsoft moving
>> forward with support of two different data access strategies, ODBC and
>> OLE DB? It's funny how Microsoft appears to be pushing OLE DB hard, yet
>> people seem reluctant to abandon ODBC, and again, I've heard from
>> numerous sources that ODBC still outperforms OLE DB, which is the newer
>> technology (!).
>>
>> This whole story began with my curiosity about OLE DB, and trying to
>> explore its utility. My exploration was quickly halted by the age & (in
>> my opinion) poor quality of the MDAC SDK's OLE DB sample source code. I
>> reiterate my question: if MS is serious about gaining a foothold with
>> OLE DB, why does their latest release of the MDAC SDK fail to compile
>> with the most recent IDE? Why are there no newer samples than those
>> written circa 1998?
>>
>> ODBC 1, OLE DB 0.
>
> Which may be a correct observation.
>
> There certainly were the days when Microsoft saw OLE DB as the cutting
> edge, but these days we have .Net and SqlClient.
>
> At PASS I attended a presentation on SQL Native Client, which is a
> component
> on SQL 2005 that has a both an updated OLE DB provider and an update ODBC
> driver for SQL 2005, all in the same DLL. The presenter, Chris Lee, said
> that ODBC is a more natural choice for implementing clients in native
> code, because the interface is simpler to use. And for SQL Native Client
> they've managed to improve the performance for the ODBC side with 20%,
> whereas the OLE DB side is equal to he old SQLOLEDB.
>
> OLE DB still has its place - if you have a set of data that you wish
> to access as a linked server from SQL Server, you need to implement an
> OLE DB provider.
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
.
- References:
- Samplclnt example in MDAC 2.8: My Story
- From: Michael Skelton
- RE: Samplclnt example in MDAC 2.8: My Story
- From: Warren Read
- Re: Samplclnt example in MDAC 2.8: My Story
- From: Michael Skelton
- Re: Samplclnt example in MDAC 2.8: My Story
- From: Erland Sommarskog
- Samplclnt example in MDAC 2.8: My Story
- Prev by Date: ATL Provider as SQL Linked Server
- Next by Date: Re: Can anyone help me about this ERROR?Oledb
- Previous by thread: Re: Samplclnt example in MDAC 2.8: My Story
- Next by thread: Reg OLEDB images..
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading