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,ee0dc912649d50d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada DB bindings and APQ Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:29:16 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <1km3c584awura$.y7djkir1ozya$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1103048956 25723 134.91.1.34 (14 Dec 2004 18:29:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:29:16 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6945 Date: 2004-12-14T18:29:16+00:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: : On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:25:22 -0500, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: : Yep, the first error one gets: lpq not found. libpq.a is not distributed : with GNAT. This might become a problem in the future. I'm not at all surprised that when I use a binding but not the bound thing, I'll get an error. : Yes, but from user's perspective, at least one query per connection is : always necessary. In some cases the user will need more, but not so often. I doubt this very much. Indeed, we have a server type application that does not work at all without a connection pool, because performance is affected rather drastically when you control connections. This is at least true for the DB systems we have had a chance to try. If then you want one physical connection to play the part of a "reusable" connection that is not in the way of programmers, then why do you need one at all in the abstraction? For example, how about ticket based query authentication? : I do not see much sense in all that levels of types exposed to the user. As a user, I agree that a DWIM DB abstraction is wonderful. It just isn't practical when using current database technology :-) : Internally of course. This could be necessary for "light-weight" connection : cloning. : : Handle --> Query_Object --> Connection_Object : : 1. Handle copy (+1 reference count of Query_Object) : 2. Light-weight copy: creates new query (+1 reference count of connection) : 3. Heavy-weight copy: creates a new query and a new connection This starts looking like optimazation techniques used in current database systems. : My case is much simpler. The application : starts, it checks if DB exists, if not, it creates that empty. : I believe, : this is about 80% of needs for small applications. Aha! So your goal is to have a convenient abstraction for a specific kind of data storage in small applications? : Anyway, there should be a uniform way of putting values into requests : separated from SQL-keywords, and, probably, names of tables, of columns : etc. This again sounds like a newly designed Ada-interface based OO data storage system for Ada programs... Go ahead :) -- Georg