in reply to Re: CGI/App vs. Win32/DBI Proxy?
in thread CGI/App vs. Win32/DBI Proxy?

Actually, there is a point to DBI::Proxy. And yes, it can be used hapilly for this example.

The point is, that the windows box only needs perl and DBI installed. It doesn't need any of the database specific drivers. Instead, it uses DBI::Proxy to talk to a DBI::Proxy server, and that then uses the database specific libraries it has access to, to do the actual work.

I've used this before, myself, as it meant that I didn't have to go around installing the Oracle client tools on Unix boxen where I wasn't given that much space...

--
Tommy
Too stupid to live.
Too stubborn to die.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: CGI/App vs. Win32/DBI Proxy?
by perrin (Chancellor) on Apr 29, 2002 at 13:27 UTC
    If you have a choice and you care about performance, it's better to install the real DBD driver on the client machine. It's much faster. It's also a much more common approach and thus better debugged, easier to get help with, etc. ActiveState provides pre-built packages through their PPM tool for most of the DBD drivers, including commercial ones like Oracle.