Date: 2020-04-06 08:44:34
As someone who suggested that this sort of analysis would help the cast for this
proposed library, I sense that this is a considered and convincing argument that
this library is extensible to other databases than MySQL. (But sadly I am not
an expert on databases to know if the case will convince those much more
knowledgeable). Of course, the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating' so a
working link to another database would be much more persuasive, but I can
understand the author reluctance to do this.
So I would not discourage the author for continuing to prepare his library for
Boost, but warn that it is a rocky road ahead for acceptance for any library
proposal. But I can't see how there can't be users for it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Ruben Perez via Boost
> Sent: 3 April 2020 19:09
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Ruben Perez <rubenperez038_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] MySQL ASIO library
> Hi all,
> I would like to re-take the discussion line about the MySQL library against
> support-all-SQL library approach. As you all know, the current MySQL-Asio
> only supports MySQL, following the approach of "doing a single thing and doing
> right". As I already mentioned, I see this as a building block that a
> library can use, or as a directly usable library if you just need MySQL.
> However, I know some of you were concerned about the potential difficulty in
> integrating different libraries like MySQL-Asio, in terms of complexity and
> efficiency. I have been looking into another SQL database protocol (concretely
> PostgreSQL, as it's the one I know the most after MySQL). In this mail I want
> compare the two protocols from a high level perspective, and focus on the
> possible trouble that a higher-level SQL library could encounter when
> MySQL-Asio with its equivalent for PostgreSQL (please note that the library
> PostgreSQL does NOT exist yet).
> - Both protocols start with a handshake. Most of the handshake parameters
> (credentials, schema to use...) are common, but some may be database-specific
> (e.g. collation to use for MySQL). I don't see much problem creating a wrapper
> with the minimum set of parameters for all backends in the higher-level
> - Both protocols support a "query single" operation, where a SQL text string
> to the server and a resultset is sent back (more on resultsets later).
> - Both protocols support prepared statements, where you send a statement to be
> prepared, as a text string, and something representing the prepared statement
> returned. This prepared statement may then be executed as many times as
> required, returning a resultset each time. For PostgreSQL, the execution model
> more granular than in MySQL (i.e. in MySQL there would be a single execute()
> in PostgreSQL there would be a bind(), an
> execute() and a sync(), the result of these three being a resultset). The
> library expose the minimum subset of steps. Again, I think it can be done
> too many problems.
> - When a resultset is returned, both protocols send each individual row in a
> separate message. This is something I use in MySQL-Asio to allow single-row
> retrieval and could be implemented for PostgreSQL similarly.
> - When a resultset is returned, both protocols return some metadata describing
> the columns the resultset is made of. This is a little bit more heterogeneous,
> there is common stuff (field name, field type...).
> Again, I see feasible that a high-level library exposes the common subset of
> - In MySQL-Asio, values are represented as a variant of all the types
> the database. MySQL-Asio exposes all types supported by MySQL.
> Some of them are SQL standard and other are extensions. I guess the
> library should only expose the SQL standard types, and thus a mapping is
> here. MySQL-Asio tries to make things as efficient as possible and avoids
> much as possible. All used types are either ints/floats, datetimes (from the
> library and chrono), or string_view's. Concretely, strings are not copied, but
> original message is kept alive instead. With all this, I think a reasonably
> mapping could be implemented by a higher-level library.
> I hope this analysis may help convince those of you still in doubt. Any
> suggestions are welcome.
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 16:07, Paul A Bristow via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Richard
> > > Hodges
> > via
> > > Boost
> > > Sent: 4 March 2020 13:46
> > > To: boost_at_[hidden] List <boost_at_[hidden]>
> > > Cc: Richard Hodges <hodges.r_at_[hidden]>
> > > Subject: Re: [boost] MySQL ASIO library
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure about Boost.MPI, but I thought it was not a wrapper
> > > > of a single library, but of a standard API that can be implemented
> > > > by different libraries. Boost.Regex is not a wrapper at all; it
> > > > implements regular expressions from scratch. asio::ssl is not a
> > > > library but a plugin for Boost.ASIO that provides one small piece
> > > > of functionality compared to the rest of the library. Boost.Python
> > > > is probably closest to an exception, although it is a binding to
> > > > another language (not a library), which arguably only has one C
> > > > API and implementation. Yes, there is CPython, but I don't believe
> > > > it offers a C API.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This line of discussion between us is now moot. The author has
> > > confirmed
> > that
> > the
> > > implementation of the mysql protocol is original work.
> > >
> > > I don't think the amount of contributions by itself is the goal.
> > > There
> > >
> > > > has to be value associated with the contribution. I just don't
> > > > think a
> > > > C++ wrapper of a specific library has enough value.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I for one have needed a good async mysql database layer on two
> > > occasions
> > in
> > > production systems.
> > >
> > > The first time I wrote a minimal wrapper around the c mysql libs
> > > (the
> > c++ one
> > is
> > > awful).
> > >
> > > The second time I used amy, which is not fully asio compliant (it
> > > doesn't
> > support
> > > coroutines or futures).
> > >
> > > As a user of boost for over ten years, I would have benefitted
> > > greatly
> > from a
> > library
> > > like this being in boost.
> > >
> > > I am not alone.
> > >
> > > Talking to MySQL is a fundamental operation in the web world, which
> > represents
> > a
> > > huge chunk of programming effort.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > Paul
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk