From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,bf02c238a92156a3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Windows Ada database support. Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:29:51 +0100 Message-ID: <11w2chxxtggn9.a442ecwtujd2$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <5e3e03a7.0411240431.7e037a4e@posting.google.com> <2004112420030750073%david@bottoncom> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 52/Vc9XqmP+MWsVZ2zp4rQALAb3l9ypFbzs4DFR+AvoTlfF0U= User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.12.1 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6806 Date: 2004-12-06T17:29:51+01:00 List-Id: 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