email article printer friendly more resources

Get Ready for Yukon
The next release of SQL Server promises increased developer productivity and reduced DBA workload.
by Roger Jennings

June 2003 Issue

For This Solution: SQL Server "Yukon" Beta, Visual Studio .NET "Whidbey" Beta, InfoPath Beta, SQL Server Reporting Services Beta (when available)

The next release of Microsoft SQL Server, code-named "Yukon," will reshape the Windows relational database management system (RDBMS) landscape. Yukon promises to incorporate the benefits of native XML and object-oriented databases within a fully programmable relational database framework. A new Reporting Service, support for InfoPath (formerly XDocs) data-entry forms, and Transact-SQL (T-SQL) enhancements round out Yukon's new feature set. David Campbell, Microsoft's product unit manager for the SQL Server engine, gave .NET developers a Yukon preview at VSLive! San Francisco this past February. In this article, I'll analyze Campbell's "Database of the Future: A Preview of Yukon and Other Technical Advancements" keynote address from an IT management and SQL Server DBA perspective. Additional details for some new Yukon features come from transcripts of earlier SQL Server chat sessions.

Like Windows Server 2003, Yukon has had an extended gestation period. A February 2000 Microsoft press release contained the first official mention of Yukon as the code-name for SQL Server v.Next. Paul Flessner provided an initial look at Yukon during his October 21, 2001, presentation at the Professional Developer's Conference (see Resources). Flessner mentioned Yukon's native HTTP connectivity, XML data type, and XQuery processor, and he demonstrated the SQL Workbench's IntelliSense features with the C# stored procedure code running in the embedded .NET Framework's common language runtime (CLR). Eric Rudder, senior vice president for platform and developer evangelism, announced at VSLive! San Francisco that the next full release of Visual Studio, code-named "Whidbey" will coincide with Yukon's arrival (see Resources). You can expect beta versions of Yukon and Whidbey this year and release to manufacturing sometime in 2004. SQL Server 2000 entered production on August 7, 2000. Four years between SQL Server releases is a long time, especially when you consider that SQL Server celebrated its 10th anniversary on November 20, 2002.

The obvious question facing IT management is the potential return on investment (ROI) in Yukon upgrades to production servers, along with Whidbey licenses and training for .NET development teams. A MSDN Universal Subscription lets you kick Yukon's tires but boards of directors have line-item veto power over major IT expenditures in today's economy. Early adopters of SQL Server 2000 and Windows 2000 have probably recouped their initial expenditures several times over by now, but many organizations continue to run SQL Server 7.0 and 6.5 under Windows NT. Inertia, not momentum, is the physical principle that governs today's operating-system and database infrastructures. Overcoming upgrade reluctance across all its product lines is Microsoft's primary challenge for at least the remainder of this decade.

Consider the Yukon Beta Program
If your organization is committed to XML as the lingua franca of enterprise application integration (EAI) and to XML Web services for interapplication messaging behind the firewall, factor Windows Server 2003 running Yukon into your 2004 or 2005 budget. Allocate developer and DBA resources to participate in the forthcoming Yukon beta program. Six new Yukon features should ensure a respectable upgrade ROI.

First, Yukon includes XML as a native SQL Server datatype. The capability to store and query XML documents within a relational database will become increasingly important as your migration to XML progresses. For example, you might be required to archive third-party SOAP request and response messages for nonrepudiation or auditing purposes. Support for XPath and XQuery extensions to T-SQL will probably eliminate most organizations' need to invest in dedicated XML data stores. (You can expect XML-specific database vendors to contest this conclusion vigorously.)