From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-15 18:42:01
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:38:57 +0300, Yuval Ronen wrote
> Jeff Garland wrote:
> > I'd still really like to see a database binding library make it into
> > TR2. Not having this is killing C++ against Java for application
> > developers. We've had some periodic fits and starts, but it seems clear
> > we won't have a Boost library by then. I'd still like to see someone
> > with some time step up and take this on. It's been done about 10 times
> > so I think a proposal could be gleaned from the best of the current
> > bindings...
> All this database talks made me a bit puzzled. What's exactly the
> standard committee can do about database interface? I mean, does
> specifying a standard interface for database means that I can write
> code that uses this interface and then I'll find my self reading
> data from a database?
> Which database?
Any relational database.
> The database compiler vendors
> will suddenly have to provide with their compiler to satisfy the
> standard requirements? Probably not... Compiler vendors won't start
> writing databases (except Microsoft, of course :-) ). This means
> that this standard interface would be directed to database vendors
> rather than compiler vendors. Is this the plan? That database
> vendors will start supplying C++ header files and lib files with a
> "C++ Compliant" stamp?
You raise a good point. Virtually all database vendors supply an ODBC
interface -- so I would expect that this would be the primary basic 'driver
interface' supplied by companies building standard libraries. However, I
would expect the architecture to allow for database or standard library
vendors to provide high performance native bindings for particular databases.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk