From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-05 11:58:56
"Andreas Pokorny" <andreas.pokorny_at_[hidden]> wrote
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 09:17:18AM -0400, Arkadiy Vertleyb
> > The RTL was discussed on this list at some time in the past. The early
> > version of RTL is described in the March 2004 issue of CUJ. The main
> > difference from currently discussed RML is that we decided against using
> > SQL - like interface, and use the relational algebra-based interface
> > instead.
> The most important part for a library like that, is the ability to have
> the table stored in a file, and only partially mapped into memory. So
It's important, but I wouldn't say "most important". For many tasks having
the ability to serialize tables should be enough.
> some tree datastructure like a B+tree is an important requirement for
> a database library. Any chance that this will happen soon? Maybe you
> remember that I started an attempt to write such a datastructure, but I
> lost myself in details and had to give up, as soon as exams took most
> part of my free time.
So, "Any chance that this will happen soon?" :)
> From the interface point of view, I also prefer the relational
> algebra "syntax". It somehow looks more familiar to me.
> > The RTL can currently be compiled with VC7.1 or GCC 3.3+ (although with
> > there might still remain some naming conflicts between MPL and STL, that
> > show up with certain usages)
> Because gcc also considers structures when doing adl of a function call?
> In some previous, and also private discussions you mentioned that you
> would like to have RTL rewritten, because you made some tradeoffs to
> support older versions of gcc and vc. Is that versions the overall
No, this is just the port to Boost 1.33 (vary little changes, in fact). I
would not think it should be fully rewritten, though, just re-factored to
simplify the implementation. A few design choices, made in the very
beginning, mostly related to the lack of partial template specialization in
Nevertheless I wanted to once more attract people's attention to the library
because the interest to relational issues seems to pop-up, and again, I
don't believe to mimick SQL is the right way to go. The SQL was designed as
yet another attempt to try to make computers understand a language that
looks more or less like plain English. Now I don't think that even database
comunity considers it a way to proceed.
One of the main things that prevented us from moving forward, was not enough
interest, but now we can re-consider this -- the number of downloads seems
pretty high :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk