Re: [boost] Request for Interest in several Modules

Subject: Re: [boost] Request for Interest in several Modules
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-12 06:18:14

On 12 January 2012 09:24, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Den 12-01-2012 09:08, Dominique Devienne skrev:
>
>> Â Unless the community decides the high-performance use cases
>> are out-of-bounds as too DB-vendor specific, but let that be a
>> conscious decision at least, not an unforeseen consequence of the
>> library's design/API.
>
> Well, if a library could not support high-performance cases because of its
> design, I would vote "reject" immediately. I'm ok with the fact that
> its first release does not support it, but I want to be able to do so in the
> future.

Thorsten, Dominique,

Yes, I agree.

As a PostgreSQL, it also is important to me to perform transfer in binary mode
instead of textual, also for performance.

I have exchanged a few e-mails with Artyom and our opinions regarding
text vs binary transfer mode are different here.
SOCI and CppDb use text mode.

(I've worked on binary mode for SOCI. Unfortunately, SOCI has lost the lead
developer and its future is uncertain. If I manage to release binary mode,
it will be as separate/forked library, I guess.)

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net