libgnadeodbc

libgnadeodbc

[lyttlec]

I'm just getting back into Ada and trying to update an old project to
Ubuntu 17.04. But I can't find libgnadeodbc or its replacement.
Google search seems to indicate nothing after 2005. Any help?

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 14/06/2017 14:30, lyttlec wrote:

> I'm just getting back into Ada and trying to update an old project to
> Ubuntu 17.04. But I can't find libgnadeodbc or its replacement.
> Google search seems to indicate nothing after 2005. Any help?

AFAIK GNADE is no more maintained. Furthermore you could not use it 
anyway because the last version I know does not support ODBC 
modifications made to support 64-bit systems.

As for a replacement, ODBC bindings are included into Simple Components.

    http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de/ada/components.htm#ODBC_Bindings

If you going to use sources take care of choosing the correct driver 
(unixODBC for Linux) and architecture (i686 = 32-bit or x86_64 = 
64-bit). Some ODBC types are different in different architectures.

P.S. i686 must also work for ARMv7.

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

Re: libgnadeodbc

[JA]

Hello Dmitry and all,

I have to implement in Linux RedHat a MySQL application. I have been several days reading and I have seen that there is no ADA library update.

I have download and install gnade-src-1.3.5. I have to update some calls and types due gnade is not align with the current MySQL version. 

Finally I have done some successful tests with adbc and mysql interface.

Now, I am trying to use obdc interface but I cannot find the library in linux.

I have read that abdc is obsolete and just a draft.

What do you recommend me to use? 

Thanks in advance.

Regards.

El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2017, 12:53:37 (UTC), Dmitry A. Kazakov  escribió:
> On 14/06/2017 14:30, lyttlec wrote:
> 
> > I'm just getting back into Ada and trying to update an old project to
> > Ubuntu 17.04. But I can't find libgnadeodbc or its replacement.
> > Google search seems to indicate nothing after 2005. Any help?
> 
> AFAIK GNADE is no more maintained. Furthermore you could not use it 
> anyway because the last version I know does not support ODBC 
> modifications made to support 64-bit systems.
> 
> As for a replacement, ODBC bindings are included into Simple Components.
> 
>     http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de/ada/components.htm#ODBC_Bindings
> 
> If you going to use sources take care of choosing the correct driver 
> (unixODBC for Linux) and architecture (i686 = 32-bit or x86_64 = 
> 64-bit). Some ODBC types are different in different architectures.
> 
> P.S. i686 must also work for ARMv7.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakov
> http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Bojan Bozovic]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:55:01 PM UTC+2, JA wrote:
> Hello Dmitry and all,
> 
> I have to implement in Linux RedHat a MySQL application. I have been several days reading and I have seen that there is no ADA library update.
> 
> I have download and install gnade-src-1.3.5. I have to update some calls and types due gnade is not align with the current MySQL version. 
> 
> Finally I have done some successful tests with adbc and mysql interface.
> 
> Now, I am trying to use obdc interface but I cannot find the library in linux.
> 
> I have read that abdc is obsolete and just a draft.
> 
> What do you recommend me to use? 
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2017, 12:53:37 (UTC), Dmitry A. Kazakov  escribió:
> > On 14/06/2017 14:30, lyttlec wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm just getting back into Ada and trying to update an old project to
> > > Ubuntu 17.04. But I can't find libgnadeodbc or its replacement.
> > > Google search seems to indicate nothing after 2005. Any help?
> > 
> > AFAIK GNADE is no more maintained. Furthermore you could not use it 
> > anyway because the last version I know does not support ODBC 
> > modifications made to support 64-bit systems.
> > 
> > As for a replacement, ODBC bindings are included into Simple Components.
> > 
> >     http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de/ada/components.htm#ODBC_Bindings
> > 
> > If you going to use sources take care of choosing the correct driver 
> > (unixODBC for Linux) and architecture (i686 = 32-bit or x86_64 = 
> > 64-bit). Some ODBC types are different in different architectures.
> > 
> > P.S. i686 must also work for ARMv7.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Regards,
> > Dmitry A. Kazakov
> > http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Matreshka project have MySQL interface, I haven't used it but you can check it out. I hope it works to your expectation

http://forge.ada-ru.org/matreshka

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 06/04/2018 12:54, JA wrote:

> Now, I am trying to use obdc interface but I cannot find the library in linux.

The "official" Linux ODBC library is unixODBC.

BTW, if you indeed tried to install the packaged ODBC bindings you would 
be told about the failed dependency on unixODBC.

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

Re: libgnadeodbc

[jafparejo]

Thank you very much for both answers.

I am going to check Matreshka SQL interface and also try to install again unixODBC.

In any case, I have seen that for Postgres and SQLlite,  AdaCore offers GNATColl and I was looking for something like this for MySQL but it seems that there is nothing.

Thanks again.

Regards

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 09/04/2018 11:26, jafparejo@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I am going to check Matreshka SQL interface and also try to install again unixODBC.
> 
> In any case, I have seen that for Postgres and SQLlite,  AdaCore offers GNATColl and I was looking for something like this for MySQL but it seems that there is nothing.

Why there should be any? There are hundreds of RDBMS. It is silly to 
have bindings for each possible RDBMS client and have a mess of the 
application if that must work with RDBMS from different vendors.

This is why there is ODBC, to have a universal access to any RDBMS. Any 
decent RDBMS provides ODBC drivers. E.g. MySQL connector comes with ODBC 
drivers.

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

Re: libgnadeodbc

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 09/04/2018 à 12:02, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> Why there should be any? There are hundreds of RDBMS. It is silly to
> have bindings for each possible RDBMS client and have a mess of the
> application if that must work with RDBMS from different vendors.
> 
> This is why there is ODBC, to have a universal access to any RDBMS. Any
> decent RDBMS provides ODBC drivers. E.g. MySQL connector comes with ODBC
> drivers.
ODBC just provides a protable way to submit queries. In my experience,
the major factor of (lack of) portability if you change your DBMS is in
the variations in the SQL language, not in the interface.

So, you are bound to a given DBMS in any way.

-- 
J-P. Rosen
Adalog
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00
http://www.adalog.fr

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 09/04/2018 12:29, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> Le 09/04/2018 à 12:02, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>> Why there should be any? There are hundreds of RDBMS. It is silly to
>> have bindings for each possible RDBMS client and have a mess of the
>> application if that must work with RDBMS from different vendors.
>>
>> This is why there is ODBC, to have a universal access to any RDBMS. Any
>> decent RDBMS provides ODBC drivers. E.g. MySQL connector comes with ODBC
>> drivers.
> ODBC just provides a protable way to submit queries.

+ binding parameters (SQL has huge problems with literal values)
+ walking the result set

> In my experience,
> the major factor of (lack of) portability if you change your DBMS is in
> the variations in the SQL language, not in the interface.
> 
> So, you are bound to a given DBMS in any way.

Yes, but that is the language problem of SQL.

With ODBC one can at least query the capabilities of the DBMS. Surely 
that is not what the Ada programmer expects: tell the semantics and 
leave the language to implement it, but better than nothing.

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

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Stephen Leake]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:30:42 AM UTC-5, lyttlec wrote:
> I'm just getting back into Ada and trying to update an old project to
> Ubuntu 17.04. But I can't find libgnadeodbc or its replacement.
> Google search seems to indicate nothing after 2005. Any help?

The best replacement is the AdaCore library gnatcoll; I use the sqlite variant, but they also support others.

I used to help maintain gnade, but stopped when AdaCore released gnatcoll_sqlite. They get paid to maintain it.

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 10/04/2018 06:08, Stephen Leake wrote:

> I use the sqlite variant, but they also support others.

SQLite is a single-file DB. It has a totally different purpose than DBMS 
"proper", e.g. to be linked statically to an application in order to 
keep some private persistent data. It wonders me why people keep on 
mentioning it in the same row with MySQL, MS-SQL etc.

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

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Randy Brukardt]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:pahpof$1d9l$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 10/04/2018 06:08, Stephen Leake wrote:
>
>> I use the sqlite variant, but they also support others.
>
> SQLite is a single-file DB. It has a totally different purpose than DBMS 
> "proper", e.g. to be linked statically to an application in order to keep 
> some private persistent data. It wonders me why people keep on mentioning 
> it in the same row with MySQL, MS-SQL etc.

Maybe because it is all most projects need, but clueless management has 
required a DBMS? So the programmers fake it by using SQLite and saying it is 
a DBMS? (Few problems really need a DBMS.)

                        Randy.

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Paul Rubin]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> Maybe because it is all most projects need, but clueless management has 
> required a DBMS? So the programmers fake it by using SQLite and saying it is 
> a DBMS? (Few problems really need a DBMS.)

It wouldn't have occurred to me that sqlite is somehow not a DBMS.  It's
an SQL database that happens to be serverless.  It's still ACID since it
handles concurrency through file locking.  Yes you link it into your
application as a library.  If you were using Postgres you'd instead link
in a client library that speaks some wire protocol to a remote server.
Either way, you link a library.

I like sqlite and use it for small databases all the time.  Of course
you get more features and performance with heavyweight databases, but
they're also harder to maintain.  You have to keep the server running,
the data is spread across multiple files, etc.  By contrast, an sqlite
client can simply launch, do its thing with the database, and shut down.
The sqlite db itself is just one disk file, making backups simple, etc.

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 11/04/2018 00:28, Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>> Maybe because it is all most projects need, but clueless management has
>> required a DBMS? So the programmers fake it by using SQLite and saying it is
>> a DBMS? (Few problems really need a DBMS.)
> 
> It wouldn't have occurred to me that sqlite is somehow not a DBMS.

It is "DBMS" and its client in one bottle.

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

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Marius Amado-Alves]

> It's still ACID since it handles concurrency through file locking.

The C in ACID is not for Concurrency... Does SQLite provide multiple asyncronous responses to multiple asyncronous queries?

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 06:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Marius Amado-Alves
<amado.alves@gmail.com> declaimed the following:

>> It's still ACID since it handles concurrency through file locking.
>
>The C in ACID is not for Concurrency... Does SQLite provide multiple asyncronous responses to multiple asyncronous queries?

https://www.sqlite.org/lockingv3.html
https://www.sqlite.org/isolation.html


-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
	wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ 

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Shark8]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:54:35 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message 
> news:pahpof$1d9l$1
> > On 10/04/2018 06:08, Stephen Leake wrote:
> >
> >> I use the sqlite variant, but they also support others.
> >
> > SQLite is a single-file DB. It has a totally different purpose than DBMS 
> > "proper", e.g. to be linked statically to an application in order to keep 
> > some private persistent data. It wonders me why people keep on mentioning 
> > it in the same row with MySQL, MS-SQL etc.
> 
> Maybe because it is all most projects need, but clueless management has 
> required a DBMS? So the programmers fake it by using SQLite and saying it is 
> a DBMS? (Few problems really need a DBMS.)

Few *NEED* one, but there's a lot that can benefit from one, some a great deal. I believe that programming-in-general is just such an application: the usage of the file-system as an ad-hoc database is really quite fragile and, I believe it's quite obvious, adds a lot of system-dependencies that are unnecessary. (eg file-name case sensitivity, timestamp resolution, etc.)

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 10/04/2018 23:54, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:pahpof$1d9l$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 10/04/2018 06:08, Stephen Leake wrote:
>>
>>> I use the sqlite variant, but they also support others.
>>
>> SQLite is a single-file DB. It has a totally different purpose than DBMS
>> "proper", e.g. to be linked statically to an application in order to keep
>> some private persistent data. It wonders me why people keep on mentioning
>> it in the same row with MySQL, MS-SQL etc.
> 
> Maybe because it is all most projects need, but clueless management has
> required a DBMS? So the programmers fake it by using SQLite and saying it is
> a DBMS? (Few problems really need a DBMS.)

BTW, these are two separate questions in one:

1. Do we need a shared persistent storage with a well-defined, 
concurrent, networking, consistent etc interface?

2. Must it be relational?

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

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Björn Lundin]

On 2018-04-11 09:23, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> 
> 1. Do we need a shared persistent storage with a well-defined,
> concurrent, networking, consistent etc interface?

It would be nice to have.
As being one that *needs* DBMS, I'd like to have a consistent
interface to a DBMS. Yes there is ODBC, but runs real bad on AIX.
SQLite and Access (JET engine db) does not work well when many processes
access the same database. Having only one process, they may very well do.
But not in a system of processes.

The differences in SQL are mostly in the DDL area (create table etc)
than in DML (select/update etc)
and if you *need* a DBMS you don't create the database on the fly.
It is there to use, created by someone else.

I develop/maintain a system with ~1_000_000 locs (a Warehose control
system) and I know of 3 sql-statements in the code that differs
because of DBMS vendor (Oracle/MS-sql/Postgresql).
They all have to do with function 'substring' is called 'substr' by Oracle.

I get the feeling that SQL is frowned upon by this group,
but it is very useful even as is.


> 2. Must it be relational?

It must at least be easy to use 3rd party tools to generate reports from
The relational part is a way of not doubly define data, which is good.
But works clunky with objects though, since it is set based.




-- 
--
Björn

Re: libgnadeodbc

[jrmarino]

(Just picking a post to reply to)

Well, nobody mentioned my database interface project, so I'll just post the links again:

http://jrmarino.github.io/AdaBase/
https://github.com/jrmarino/AdaBase

It supports MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite well.  In less complex use cases, it should be possible to have an application use any backend rather than be locked to a specific database (if abstraction capabilities are used).

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 2018-04-15 18:08, jrmarino wrote:
> (Just picking a post to reply to)
> 
> Well, nobody mentioned my database interface project, so I'll just post the links again:
> 
> http://jrmarino.github.io/AdaBase/
> https://github.com/jrmarino/AdaBase
> 
> It supports MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite well.  In less complex use cases, it should be possible to have an application use any backend rather than be locked to a specific database (if abstraction capabilities are used).

BTW, another advantage of not using specific bindings is that with ODBC 
you are not statically linked to the client. When a particular client is 
not installed you can still start the application.

Though it is possible to design client bindings in a way that that would 
load the client dynamically, it is quite complicated while keeping 
bindings thin or medium thick.

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

Re: libgnadeodbc

[Shark8]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 1:23:12 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 10/04/2018 23:54, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message
> > news:pahpof$1d9l$1
> >> On 10/04/2018 06:08, Stephen Leake wrote:
> >>
> >>> I use the sqlite variant, but they also support others.
> >>
> >> SQLite is a single-file DB. It has a totally different purpose than DBMS
> >> "proper", e.g. to be linked statically to an application in order to keep
> >> some private persistent data. It wonders me why people keep on mentioning
> >> it in the same row with MySQL, MS-SQL etc.
> > 
> > Maybe because it is all most projects need, but clueless management has
> > required a DBMS? So the programmers fake it by using SQLite and saying it is
> > a DBMS? (Few problems really need a DBMS.)
> 
> BTW, these are two separate questions in one:
> 
> 1. Do we need a shared persistent storage with a well-defined, 
> concurrent, networking, consistent etc interface?

I think this would be quite desirable.

> 
> 2. Must it be relational?

No, I don't believe so.