Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-03-05 08:56:28

On 2020-03-05 10:02, Julien Blanc via Boost wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 mars 2020 à 16:06 +0000, Paul A Bristow via Boost a
> écrit :
>>> It seems a no-brainer to me that a well maintained means of
>>> efficiently doing so
>>> would be a positive addition to boost.
>> By itself, this is a reasonably convincing case, but what would quiet
>> some of
>> doubters would be to have at least an outline of connecting to
>> another database.
>> Showing reasonable confidence that extension to other databases is
>> feasible
>> would be a big plus IMO.
> I expect a more versatile db library to rely on underlying low-level
> backends such as this one, so i tend to disagree here: trying to handle
> multiple database here will greatly increase complexity with few
> additional value for the user: differences in SQL dialects and
> supported types, for example, will anyway prevent any simple backend
> switch for the user.
> Having a common shared design for the different backends, however, will
> indeed be useful in building a higher level db abstraction, though (not
> sure if it was your point).

Right. But when the backends are not part of a common solution, I have a
hard time seeing them have a compatible interface, which makes writing
the higher level unifying library more difficult and the end result less
efficient. Granted, you will have the same kind of problems when using
the native C APIs of database engines. But my point is that the solution
that is designed from the start as a unifying frontend + multiple
backends from the start has the potential of being more efficient and
more straightforward.

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