On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:13:53PM -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
DBI Folks Gisle,
I want to add support for specifying database connections as URIs to Sqitch,
my DB change management system. I started working on it today, following the
examples of JDBC and PostgreSQL. Before I release,
On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Jens Rehsack rehs...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:21 PM, H.Merijn Brand h.m.br...@xs4all.nl wrote:
As I always use 2. when writing scripts, mostly because I use quite a
few useful attributes in the 4th argument already, it is the most
logical place: easy to maintain, easy to read and easy to extend.
Also very much
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com wrote:
Why not define a direct translation from a URL to a DBI DSN?
A translation that doesn't require knowledge of any driver-specifics.
Because I want to the onus of connecting to the database to be on the
developer, not the
On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:02 AM, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote:
$ perl-MURI -E 'say
URI-new(db:pg://me:sec...@example.com/foo.db)-dbi_dsn'
dbi:Pg:dbname=me:secret.com/foo.db
Well, I can see I have a bug or two to work out. That should be:
$ perl -MURI -Ilib -E 'say
On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:53 AM, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote:
Well, I can see I have a bug or two to work out. That should be:
$ perl -MURI -Ilib -E 'say
URI-new(db:pg://me:sec...@example.com/foo.db)-dbi_dsn'
dbi:Pg:host=example.com;dbname=foo.db
Oh silly me not
On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Gisle Aas gi...@activestate.com wrote:
I do find the db: prefix ugly. If you want users to see these strings I
would think they find this prefix to be clutter too.
Yeah. But I would thin, that if it *was* a standard, there would be just one
scheme defined.
To me the value of database urls would be compatibility with other
implementations of this obvious idea. Some examples I found by quick
googling:
http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_0_9/core/engines.html#database-urls
http://docs.stackato.com/3.0/user/services/data-services.html#database-url
I do find the db: prefix ugly. If you want users to see these strings I
would think they find this prefix to be clutter too.
You seem to be alone in calling it pg:. For the other examples out there
I see postgresql: or postgres:. Should all different ways be allowed
and lead to the same thing?
On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Gisle Aas gi...@activestate.com wrote:
There is also precedence for using + in scheme names. Something like
db+postgresql: then. It's still cluttered, and not really compatible with
what other have used. Or x-postgres: while it's still experimental.
Naming
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:49:43PM +0100, Gisle Aas wrote:
The scheme really should just be named after the protocol, not the kind of
product you happen to find at
the other end.
It would certainly be preferable if there was a single name for each
protocol.
ODBC complicates that
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:32 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.comwrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Gisle Aas gi...@activestate.com wrote:
I do find the db: prefix ugly. If you want users to see these strings
I would think they find this prefix to be clutter too.
Yeah. But I would
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com wrote:
ODBC complicates that further.
Indeed. I want to avoid the protocol.
I've now written up my proposal as a blog post:
http://theory.so/rfc/2013/11/26/toward-a-database-uri-standard/
Thanks,
David
13 matches
Mail list logo
