[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2004-01-30 (11:26) |
From: | Vitaly Lugovsky <vsl@o...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] PostgreSQL-OCaml 1.0.1 |
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Benjamin Geer wrote: > > 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). And what's a problem? Write a portable layer, which provides YOUR application-oriented abstractions. Writing database-related sub-layer would be easy enough yet, but you will not pay the price of the efficiency. > 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. > 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. I've heared a lot of evil words from the industry programmers about the "good enough" efficiency of the JDBC. And, they're even have no alternatives, poor ones... > 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. You may provide one, your own, which is limited to the standard JDBC-like abstraction level, it would be easy to support, if you don't want to write a higher level abstractions (don't forget - you'd pay much more for the problems with SQL incompatibility - so there is no damn need in the JDBC-level layers at all). But why the maintainers of that DB bindings, like me, would follow someones "standard" limitations? ------------------- 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