From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-15 11:31:16
Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Choosing C++ for a projects where databases are involved is probably
> Well it's what I spend quite a lot of my time doing, and I find it a
> good combination. But then I often seem to be doing things differently
> from everyone else...
I've found this to be mostly an advantage personally :-)
> In my case I have written a C++ binding for PostgreSQL's libpq which
> allows me to define queries as functors:
> Query<string,int> insert_thing(db, "insert into things(name,qty) values ($1,$2)");
> SingletonQuery<int, string> count_things(db, "select sum(qty) from
> things where name=$1");
> int n_pens = count_things("pen");
> Note the template type parameters in the query declarations. These
> give the C++ types corresponding to the $n parameter placeholders in
> the SQL, and are mapped to the "oids" (in postgresql-speak) of the
> corresponding SQL types. The queries are prepared, and when they are
> run the parameters are passed to the database server in binary format.
> You get compile-time checking that the types in the query invocations
> match those in the declarations and run-time checking that the backend
> is happy with those types.
I'd say that your interface is another use case for variadic templates.
How many columns can Query support?
> I like this approach as it gives about as much type safety as is
> possible and lets you do database accesses with essentially the same
> syntax that you would use to access C++ data. I prefer this to the way
> that SOCI is used, where you always know that you're using SQL
After a quick glance it looks like a nice interface. I believe it's basically
at the same level of type safety as the SOCI interface which could probably be
trivially wrapped to provide the functional view.
> (though SOCI no doubt has other features that my library is missing).
I think the main thing about SOCI is that it has solves some big issues like
support for multiple back-ends and user defined types. These are essential
requirements for standardized db access.
> There is more detail here:
> I would be happy to describe my experiences further if anyone is
> considering adding something along these lines to Boost. My code is
> currently GPL but I am flexible about that.
Careful what you ask for ;-) It's been my dream for a couple years now to try
and get all the folks interested in db access to work together to get a Boost
library and then subsequently a standards proposal completed. I don't think
my cajoling has led to anything of substance -- various folks have their own
solutions they are happy with: DTL, OTL, native interfaces, whatever. The
problem with this lack of standard in C++ is that since the efforts are
divergent, there's not enough critical mass to build tools around any of the
API's: which is frankly where, in my view, Java, Ruby, etc get much of their
productivity advantages w.r.t. database access over C++.
SOCI seems to be the best bet at the moment, but nothing is set in stone.
So, from my view, I'd love to see a detailed review from you of the SOCI
interface -- advantages, disadvantages, etc. Also, it might be interesting to
try and port your interface to the SOCI core...I see no reason why your
interface wouldn't be a possible alternative or addition to the existing SOCI
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk