Vitaly Lugovsky wrote:
>  And what's a problem? Write a portable layer, which provides
> YOUR application-oriented abstractions.

More code means a more expensive, more time-consuming project.  Managers 
see that as a bad thing.  JDBC has many flaws, but it has enabled us to 
complete projects in a small fraction of the time that we would have 
needed if we had had to write our own portable database abstraction 
layer, using the low-level interface to each database.

Moreover, the absence of a *standard* database abstraction layer makes 
it impossible for people to write standard libraries that perform 
database access.

>>We simply cannot afford to rewrite and maintain all our
>>database-related code for every one of those databases.
> 
>  It can't be so large. Fine-grained layer always contains no more
> then a dozen of low-level entities.

One of our applications contains millions of lines of code and uses 
thousands of database tables.

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