From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-07 17:11:25
Steve Hutton wrote:
> On 2006-10-06, Nicola Musatti <Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> In my view the real problem is to decide where to stop, i.e. to decide what
>> should go into Boost.SQL and what should go in other libraries, built above it.
> It's an interesting point. I guess the downside of a limited interface
> might be that users could end up preferring to use an enhanced version of
> the library instead.
Certainly, but this is something where, in my opinion, the aims of SOCI
the successful database access C++ open source library and of Boost.SQL
the library that will be included in the Library TR 3 and C++1x diverge.
>> My view is very conservative: support as much of SQL as possible, but limit the
>> interface with C++ to simple types and tuples. Remember that we need to come out
>> with something that is digestible not only for the C++ standardization
>> committee, but possibly also for the SQL one.
> I can see that ideally the API of Boost.SQL would be as close as
> possible to the API of std::sql. But do you think it also might be
> reasonable to have Boost.SQL potentially be a superset of std::sql?
Certainly! There are several Boost libraries which I wouldn't want to
include in a future standard, yet I find very useful: Spirit is the
first that comes to my mind.
What is important in my opinion is to layer the components very
carefully and to tackle them one by one. This reminds me of another
reason why I want Boost.SQL to be limited to basic SQL access; while the
design for this part is sort of given and I do not expect difficulties
in gaining acceptance, everybody (me included!) have their own pet idea
about what should go above it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk