Talk:Open Database Connectivity

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases

Error in a Paragraph

Under "Overview", the paragraph, "Despite the benefits of ubiquitous connectivity and platform-independence, ODBC has certain drawbacks. Administering a large number of client machines can involve a diversity of drivers and DLLs. This complexity can increase system administration overhead. Large organizations with thousands of PCs have often turned to ODBC server technology to simplify the administration problem." contradicts itself. It states that ODBC has certain drawbacks, leads into a large number of clients being a problem, and then states that businesses switch to ODBC to simplify the problem. It does not state any drawbacks of ODBC at all and instead, states a reason for switching.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsedlak (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reference to SQL/CLI standard

ODBC is pretty much the same as the Call-Level Interface (CLI) as it is standardized by ISO in ISO/IEC 9075-3:2003.

Simba's role

Craig Stuntz reverted the changes made by User:207.230.228.67. I agree that the change was a bit suspicious. A drive-by-edit, by an anoynmous user, with no edit comments, might have been link-spam (but AGF), and lacked anything like a real citation. However, I'm not sure it is completely bogus. According to Simba's corporate history page, ODBC was originally a Simba product, which Microsoft licensed. If so, that's legitimate information, and makes the current article incorrect (the article says Microsoft created ODBC). More fact checking is needed, here. --DragonHawk 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I did check the facts, and that's why I reverted. It is true that Simba was involved in development of ODBC. It is a misrepresentation, however, to imply that ODBC was wholly a Simba product, was developed by Simba prior to Microsoft, or that Simba was the only company involved. Note that the Simba page you link does not actually say what DragonHawk states above (the "Simba technology" referenced is a driver, not ODBC as a whole, and you don't need their SDK to make a driver), but seems crafted to make one think that it means something along those lines. The ODBC Hall of Fame, already linked in the article, gives a much more balanced presentation. As I noted in my edit summary, I reverted not strictly due to the linkspam, but because the edits were POV/misleading.

We could discuss all the companies involved in creating ODBC, but (1) the passage in question is rather short and is accurate as it is and (2) we already link to the list I cite in the paragraph above. I don't really have any objection to a more balanced presentation of who was involved, but I don't think the article is hurting for lacking it, either. If you'd like to note what all of the contributors did (something along the lines of the Hall of Fame, for example), I have no objection. --Craig Stuntz 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay then. :) Thank you for explaining your reasoning in more detail. (The edit summary really isn't long enough for this kind of thing.) And you're right, I *was* misled by the corporate page in question. Which is why I posted this in the first place. You're on the ball. --DragonHawk 03:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]