On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:41:50 -0400
Dossy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was under the impression that, while nsodbc wasn't being actively
> maintained, that it was at least feature-complete at the time it was
> written -- what functionality is missing from it (again, short of the
> support for transactions which is easy enough to implement)?
I'll have to dust off my notes from a month and a half ago this
evening, but as I recall...
The nssolid module, and hence Tom's nsunixodbc module based on it,
and the modified ODBC3 version I cloned from that, support a few more
ns_ functions than the old nsodbc, and lack none that nsodbc has. It has
DbFn_DbType, DbFn_Select, DbFn_DML functions, which nsodbc does not.
My feeling was that since this module is a bit newer and cleaner than
the old one, has more informative logging, and supports more functions,
it would be a good candidate to replace the old nsodbc module
altogether. I likewise do not wish to see a plethora of specialized ODBC
modules floating around, and I don't think there's a need for it. I've
tested Tom's module (and my modified version) under both unixODBC and
iODBC, with both mySQL and PostgreSQL, and it works fine. It shouldn't
be too difficult to get it to build under Windows (but I haven't had
time to look into it over the past month).
I don't know of a good reason why we couldn't make a single ODBC
module that works on all platforms (and maybe clean up the documentation
to state so), as well as add some new functionality to it (e.g.,
explicit transaction support); and I think that Tom's module would be
the best base for that.
Cheers,
Bob
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of
your email blank.
