From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-05 08:57:48
Nicola Musatti wrote:
> Jeff Garland <jeff <at> crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
>> Nicola Musatti wrote:
>> Well before I even consider engaging this discussion, why not help SOCI get
>> into boost instead of inventing a new interface? We have several proposals
>> and half-finished libraries, but the real problem is that we don't have an
>> actual reviewed and accepted library to put into Boost. Are you going to have
>> time to really develop this library from scratch?
> Just to make this clear: I have absolutely nothing against a boostified version
> of SOCI being accepted into Boost and eventually submitted to the Committee for
> inclusion in a future TR or directly into the Standard.
> However I am concerned about the suitability of some of the interface choices
> made by the SOCI developers. I started writing my own library because I felt
> that my arguments would carry more weight with a concrete implementation to
> support them, however experimental, and because starting from scratch with Boost
Thanks for the clarification. I think it is an excellent idea that we have a
review of the interfaces and discuss the trade-offs. That helps the SOCI
authors get an accepted interface before the review. So in that context, code
is always more powerful to demonstrate.
>> In my view, SOCI has all the qualities to succeed as a Boost library including
>> a clean, good documentation, support for multiple databases, and several
>> developers to support it. So maybe you should start by downloading,
>> installing, and reviewing the SOCI interface in comparison to what you are
> My example is the result of comparing SOCI's API with that of similar,
> proprietary libraries I'm familiar with and trying to think about the best way
> to transform those in a standard compatible API.
Thx for the clarification :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk