- Project tools
- How do I...
|Over 500 more tools...
Re: [Catacomb] [Ann] Catacomb ODBC
Ricardo Rocha wrote:
See my other e-mail. It was a matter of (perceived) stability of the
API/libraries (I did not think they would introduce any performance
impact). I'll be honest and admit that I had not evaluated these APIs
beyond reading their docs and looking at their list of
bugs/issues/features at the time.
This brings an important subject to attention: why wasn't ODBC considered in
the first place? Why were RDBMS-specific modules being considerer
(mod_catacomb_mysql, mod_catacomb_oracle or mod_catacomb_psql)?
ODBC, IMHO, provides such a portable interface while at the same time being
a widely accepted standard.
Yeah! The code is 100% in sync with the latest cvs commits. *Nothing* in the
original codebase breaks down because of this addition, so I kindly propose
it's incorporated as an experimental feature ;-)
I would recommend that a branch be created and the code checked into
that branch so that we can all bang on it, then once everyone seems
happy we merge it into the HEAD. (At least that's how I've always done
it in the past.)
Sung, I defer to your judgement about setting up CVS Access for Ricardo
and Gianugo (and, for that matter, Go). We could certainly have a voting
procedure if you'd rather... ;)