Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Catacomb] [Ann] Catacomb ODBC



Ricardo Rocha wrote:

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)?
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.

ODBC, IMHO, provides such a portable interface while at the same time being
a widely accepted standard.
Yup.

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... ;)