Re: Faking Forms4.5 to 9iR2 DBMS

Comments embedded
]
On 27 Jan 2005 12:42:01 -0800, "ErikYkema" <erik.ykema_at_xs4all.nl> wrote:

>Hello,
>I fear this silly, but I see it as an option.
>Our OLTP client application is in Forms4.5/Reports2.5.

Forms 4.5 is firmly desupported and comes with net8 software.

 From Metalink I
>understood that connecting some versions of Forms4.5 to 8i is supported
>(for as long as it lasts).

8i is desupported

>Our underlaying DBMS is now being converted from 7.3.4. to 8iR3 - at
>last.

This is silly as 8iR3 got desupported on December 31

But I have read a lot about 9iR2 new features and like to apply
>some of them.
>Upgrading Forms to 6i or 9i is not supported by management since we
>will be purchasing a new release of our OLTP which will bring us a new
>set of 9i Forms - this migration not to be completed before mid 2006.

In the meantime Forms 9i might have been phased out. You should check on Metalink.
>I am wondering - would it be possible for the meantime to:
>- convert the OLTP DBMS to 9i
>- have an 8i instance on the same machine
>- create a database link between the two
>- create public synonyms to all relevant 9i objects in the 8i instance
>over the dblink
>And hence access (DML) the 9i objects as being 8i objects from
>Forms4.5? Does Forms access the datadictionary for any lookup etc?

Of course it does.
>
>I also believe that having the dblink over the bequeath protocol is not
>allowed since the dblink communications protocol should be the same as
>the client-server connection protocol (TCP/IP) accessing the link.

I think you are correctly in saying you believe this. You probably didn't verify it, and there is no reason why the dblink should use the same protocol.
If bequeath doesn't allow database links, use IPC

>Is there a serious performance penalty in having TCP/IP dblink traffic
>in the same machine. (I know Oracle Warehousebuilder 9i generates
>TCP/IP dblinks between instances on the same server.)
>

Of course there is, as every single transaction will become distributed and requires the 8i instance to communicate with the 9i instance.
>I am preparing a full test for this scenario, but any input would be
>appreciated.
>Best regards,
>Erik.Ykema_at_REMOVETHIS.we.nl

IMO you shouldn't even consider it. It is NOT going to work reliably and it is not supported.

--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA