Boost logo

Boost :

From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-17 09:18:25

>> So if someone is looking for something to do, how about starting with
>> containers, iterators and allocators for huge on-disk data structures.

Sohail Somani wrote:
> Do you mean this: ?

Yes! Thanks for the link.

Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Aren't you designing a database here instead of a generic relational
> interface?

Well, an interface is not much use without some sort of implementation
behind it. Possible implementations for a "generic relational
interface" include an SQL database, on-disk data structures implemented
using something like stxxl, and in-memory data structures made
persistent using serialisation. A measure of a good generic relational
interface could be that it works well with all of these implementations.

Thinking just about SQL backends, the basic question is whether we want to

(a) hide the SQL, making the database accesses look more like C++
function calls and data structures, or

(b) make the SQL explicit, making the C++ code look more like SQL.

I definitely vote for (a), and the possibility of moving an application
to something like stxxl is one of my motivations for that.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at