Re: Windows Ada database support.

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:48:09 -0500, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:50:07 -0500, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> ...
>>>APQ Plug:
>>>
>>>The good news is that you do have "choice". I have been dragging my feet
>>>in getting the latest version of APQ out, but the published version
>>>supports PostgreSQL and MySQL in OO form. The version to be released
>>>(pending install scripts), supports PostgreSQL, MySQL and SYBASE
>>>(I have been distracted with another fun and absorbing project lately).
>>>
>>>The OO level support is database neutral in most places, so that you
>>>can write portable database code. Differences do exist however, but
>>>this can be accomodated in the code if the programmer does a little
>>>planning (avoid certain database features).
>>>
>>>Good for Linux/Windows/*NIX, local or remote databases. The same
>>>database code should compile to all platforms.
>>>
>>>And... no *ODBC required. Totally native, no preprocessing of source
>>>code. Also includes comprehensive manual with examples.
>> 
>> What about support for MS-Access, MS-SQL server, Oracle?
> 
> When I get the time to put APQ up on Source Forge, then these
> shouldn't be hard to add to APQ, but volunteers.
> 
>> And more importantly why that crappy SQL over and over again? I would like
>> to see a high level Ada.Database[.Relational?] package totally independent
>> on what happens beneath.
> 
> On the relational side, it is currently near impossible to be
> "totally independent on what happens beneath". However, I believe
> APQ comes close (this was one of its design goals).
> 
> I don't really understand your criticism "why that crappy SQL over
> and over again?". I do recognize that SQL as implemented by the
> various vendors could use more uniformity, and even then is less
> than perfect. However, most people find that the current crop
> of relational databases are far superior to the old days of
> updating files without atomic transactions and referencial
> integrity. So I would tend to agree with the general feeling
> that the SQL products today, are "good enough".
> 
> Keep in mind that you cannot use a relational database without
> using SQL (at least no examples come to my mind). So if you
> don't like SQL, then you have to either forget relational,
> or build a higher level "protocol" that compiles/translates
> to SQL underneath.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. In short, Ada bindings should have
Create_Table (...) instead of Execute ("CREATE TABLE ..."). Let SQL be
perfect, firmly standardized, validated etc. Even so to have a language
within another language is a bad idea.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de