On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Josh Burdick wrote:

>    If there's going to be a "new improved version", I think maybe it
> should work with multiple databases.  ODBC, JDBC, and DBI all attempt
> this.  There could be a signature (perhaps called "DBI" to appeal to
> Perl people , and structs Postgres, MySQL, Oracle, etc., which implement
> this.

IMHO, such a standard interface should be kept separated from
engine-specific bindings.  The idea is to have specific bindings that
follow closely the "official"  C API for a given engine, which allows the
programmer to refer easily to the documentation of the C interface and to
access all the advanced and non standard features of his database backend.

Then you can build on top of such bindings higher levels of abstraction in
order to expose a common subset with a unified interface. This issue has
been raised several times on this mailing list, and no consensus has been
reached on a common interface (AFAIK).


-- Alain

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners