Vitaly Lugovsky 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.
> 
>  It was already discussed here. The conclusion was: BAD IDEA. No
> way to work efficiently with different DBs using the same
> approach.

In the company I work for (a large financial software vendor), the 
unanimous answer would be 'we don't care if it's less efficient; nothing 
else is acceptable.'  Our customers insist on being able to use our 
products with whatever database they prefer (and certainly our 
competitors' products can do this).  We simply cannot afford to rewrite 
and maintain all our database-related code for every one of those 
databases.  For us (and, I think, for most software vendors, certainly 
all the ones I've worked for) the additional abstraction is well worth a 
slight loss of efficiency.  It is quite efficient enough for us.  The 
lack of a standard database API is one of the things that, 
unfortunately, would make it very difficult for me to convince my boss 
to let me use Caml.

Ben

-------------------
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