Hi Caleb,
You bring up several important features that a decent database
abstraction layer should handle. Perhaps it would be useful to draw up a
table comparing/contrasting some of the existing modules.
Here's a take on the list based on the recent posts:
* Joins - support for joins
* named sequences - (CDBI has support for this; I use it regularly
with PostgreSQL)
* procedure calls - I don't use these but don't think that CDBI has
direct support for them; custom sql would need to be employed
* custom sql - easily call custom sql to perform non-trivial queries
* customizable where clauses - use an existing table definition to
query the table with a specific where clause (CDBI supports this
ability via the retrieve_from_sql function
* Performance - certainly important, but this figure will vary based
on the system, the database backend and the module; I think having a
benchmark suite that could be run on the target system would prove
most useful (in case anyone has some extra tuits lying around)
Perhaps this would be useful on the wiki. There is already a comparison
of several frameworks on the poop page (Perl object-oriented
persistence)[1] as well.
William
[1] http://poop.sourceforge.net/
--
Knowmad Services Inc.
http://www.knowmad.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
