Thought of that too... was just hoping there was a better way. ONames was a
little more secure too. Someone tell me again why ONames was de-supported???
In article <405765de$0$3953$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>, "Howard J. Rogers"
<hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeff" <jeff_at_work.com> wrote in message
>news:c371c1$lq2$1_at_cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
>> In article <405619de$0$3952$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>, "Howard J.
>Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote:
>>
>> >to be empty. But in "available", you should see Local naming, NIS
>External
>> >naming, Directory Naming, DCE CDS External Naming and Easy Connect
>Naming.
>>
>> What method do you suggest for those who aren't LDAP experts nor wish to
>use
>> OID with its added cost and overhead? I currently use Names Server too.
>I
>> could go back to using local naming (tnsnames), but it'll be a pain to
>keep
>> updated on all clients should a server be added or removed. What are you
>> supposed to do if you want the simple connection resolution and
>centralized
>> management that ONames provided?
>
>
>One method I've heard about but never implemented: create a tnsnames.ora,
>drop it onto a network share, and use the TNS_ADMIN environment variable on
>each client to point to it.
>
>You of course are stuffed royally if the network share ever goes down.
>There's no automatic replication between different network shares (as there
>was between different names servers). And generally its a fudge. But it
>might be a go-er.
>
>Regards
>HJR
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 17 2004 - 07:47:18 CST
