On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 02:40:54PM -0600, Ozzi Lee wrote: > > In reality, though, I think portability between databases is more > > hypothetical than real. Projects typically start with one database and > > stick to it, for moving between databases *even if a portability layer > > is in use* turns out to be hard -- all sorts of stuff outside the main > > code base ends up changing (path names, load scripts, whatever). > > I agree that portability isn't that great in practice. I'd like to see a > DBI egg for two reasons: > > 1. Starting out on a project, 90% of the time I'll use SQLite, because > it's the easiest. Often I'll want to switch to MySQL once things get > rolling. A single DBI interface makes this quite a bit easier. > > 2. For quick and dirty scripts that need to access a database, it would > be nice to have to keep in the differences between the different interfaces.
I'd like to add a third: 3. Even if individual *projects* choose a particular database implementation, any given *library* or *framework* should be database-agnostic, wherever possible. This gives people who use your library/framework the freedom to choose their database for their projects. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth
pgpsavtmLoMYe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
