RE: [Catacomb] [Ann] Catacomb ODBC
Ricardo Rocha writes:
> However, I tend to think ODBC makes per-RDBMS modules redundant.
> My question
> is: why should we incur the additional effort of writing RDBMS-specific
> ports when ODBC gives us an efficient, one-size-fits-all solution?
I'm under the impression that ODBC is not quite one-size-fits-all. That
said, I'll freely admit to not having deep expertise in ODBC.
> I also don't understand how ODBC could be at odds with stored procedures.
> SP's are fully supported by ODBC. What can be achieved via native
> interfaces that cannot be achieved via ODBC?
I was not aware that ODBC supports stored procedures.
Seems like we need to do some homework on ODBC here at UCSC, and then based
on this, revisit our decision.