Re: [boost] Re: Library Proposal: database (boost::db)

From: Tito Villalobos (tvillalobos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-24 02:02:55

I would bet money (not much, but maybe a few dollars ;-) ) that the 2 
pages came about because of a linewrap in the link.  Sorry, I'm sure I 
screwed that up somewhere.

Array binding, (by which I believe you mean "bulk row fetch") is 
available in ODBC.  It can be done either as arrays of structs 
("row-wise binding") or as arrays of columns ("column wise  binding")

While I like the SOCI interface, we need to port it over to ODBC.  While 
Oracle is one of the major vendors, everyone supports ODBC.  (Of course 
the process of "boostifying" it may end up reworking alot anyways.)

There a fundamental design question, and how we answer it will probably 
affect much of the remaining design:
Do we want to have the actual bound columns be member variable/fields of 
the recordset object, or do we want the client to declare them and bind 
with a pointer or reference?  The first way is the most common, and 
doing it that way would result in a similar interface to ADO, 
mysqlcppapi, and many other libraries.  However, it can also limit 
flexibility, and it may make it impossible to attain the same 
performance using the library as hand coding to the API.  Or can we 
offer both?

Tito

Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> Jeff Garland wrote:
>
>> I moved your thoughts to the main page of discussion -- somehow you 
>> wound up
>> on  a closely related, but not the same name page...
>>  
>> http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Relational_Database_Access 
>>
>
>
> I also noticed there is a "competing" page:
>
> http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Relational_Database_A 
>
>
> Is it useful to have both?
>
>>> 6) Allows for the user of the library to "plug in" thier own binding 
>>> \ subscription system. (to support bound controls) "
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you clarify what you mean by 'bound controls'?
>
>
> I second the requirement, but with different interpretation.
> I think it is good to have the possibility to difine bindings for 
> user-defined datatypes. Specializing a given class template is one way 
> to achieve this variation point and is consistent with how it is done 
> in STL.
>