Re: Windows Ada database support.

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@NoSPAM.cogeco.ca>]

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.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg