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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-06 10:27:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F81A1B3.8050205@cogeco.ca> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030716 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? References: <3F7AC5B0.9080108@noplace.com> <3F7B7641.9030908@noplace.com> <3F7C8482.20102@comcast.net> <3F7D69EA.5030707@noplace.com> <3F7E2740.1050703@comcast.net> <3F7EBD85.8080205@noplace.com> <3F7ED11A.9070500@comcast.net> <3F7F373C.1060705@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:09:07 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1065460306 198.96.223.163 (Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:11:46 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:11:46 EDT Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:325 Date: 2003-10-06T13:09:07-04:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > Now if there were some standardized Ada binding to databases (ODBC or > whatever you like - so long as it is standard and The Ada Way) - I could > maybe see some goodness in Bounded_String for that sort of thing. I personally believe that it is probably too early to standardize on database access. The problem is that they vary way too much. Some support row ids (most), while others do not (MySQL). Some sort of support row ids (Informix: can duplicate depending upon database table layout). MySQL avoids row ids completely. They insist on serial values, but they do serial values their own way. Just about every other vendor supports serial values (or sequences in yet another way). Databases vary in their fetch capabilities. Some support random row fetches, others only sequentially. Some require you fetch all of the results (MySQL), while others allow you to just fetch the rows you feel like (PostgreSQL for example). Others require you to declare a cursor, like Sybase for random fetches, and the privilege of fetching only the rows you want. And this is just a sampling of the differences, and we havn't even touched on SQL syntax and data type names yet. ODBC tries to dumb down these differences, but a number of these issues still come through. I am fielding many of these complications as I continue to add more support to APQ for different database platforms. Warren. -- http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg