On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Peter Bex <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 12:29:40PM -0700, YC wrote: > > URI is definitely an interesting approach. I originally wanted to use a > > connection string like ODBC, but realized that since I am using DBI to be > > more than just for RDBMS (I have a memcached driver and a filepath > driver) > > and the key/value pairs is not fixed, so it becomes a situation where the > > underlying driver will dictate the key/value pairs, so I just bypass the > > need to parse the connection string (and user's need to format such > string) > > and let the underlying driver call the shot. > > I don't understand; doesn't an URI have the same problem as a connection > string? You still need to parse the individual components from it and > pass them to the driver (possibly constructing another db-specific > connection string) > Correct - I was just explaining my rationale on why I did not take such an approach. -- Cheers, yc http://yinsochen.com
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
