From: Daniel Pfeifer (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-22 10:37:04
> [...] the leading candidate [...] is soci.
I know about that. SOCI surely is a great library with high
potential. However, there are two things, that I disagree with it:
1) overloads of operator<< and operator,
It confuses me to use operator<< to get information _out_ of
2) Runtime polymorphy
I agree that is is important to switch easily between
implementations, but usually you don't need this flexibility at
runtime, do you?
I don't want to start a discussion about soci here. I just want to
point out why I would prefer a different approach.
> 3 months is a short time. I'd suggest you pick a smaller number of
> backends if you're going to propose this. The design should support
> expansion to the others, but my sense is that 5 backends in 3 months
> isn't doable.
Agreed. It is good to know what is doable in a fixed timeframe and
what is not. Now I'm spoilt for choice...
Thanks for your reply!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk