On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Jeremy Elson wrote:
>I don't know much about SQL, but it seems like if anything we should
>be writing support for just plain old SQL, so that it will work for
>any SQL-compliant database (which includes every one you mentioned).
>Is there some reason for writing code specific to a particular
>database instead of generic SQL?
From what I have seen, even with plain SQL, the database connection and API
are proprietary.
Perl's DBI (DataBase Interface) is handy because it is a high-level
abstraction of lower level DBD's (DataBase Drivers) and you can forget
about such things. That's why I really like using Perl for SQL at the
moment.
I believe my code should be extensible enough that MySQL, PostgreSQL, and
Oracle should all be able to share the same database representation (stuff
held outside the database) but have unique database drivers.
See section 18 of the MySQL manual for more information on their interface.
To summarize, every function starts with 'mysql_'
If someone is aware of a non-Perl DBI, I'd like to know about it because
that would basically eliminate the need to write database-specific drivers.
I'm checking Freshmeat.net currently but haven't seen anything yet on the
first few pages (out of 51 items).
--
George Greer | Bug Reporting or Help
greerga@circlemud.org | http://bugs.circlemud.org/
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST