On 02/13/2016 09:33 PM, Eugene Wissner wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 15:20:26 UTC, Suliman wrote:
>>
>> But we already have ddbc, that work pretty fine. Its better to force
>> developing of it
> 
> I also looked into ddbc  before. And it is a great thing since it is
> similar to the well known jdbc. I didn't like that it just wraps
> C-functions to access the postgresql. But I don't see the vibe.d
> incompatibility as a problem. Would be really greate to merge ddbc and
> ddb ;)

It isn't specifically vibe.d incompatibility that is a problem but
general lack of support of async I/O model which is a showstopper for
using such solution in any serious network application. Ideally ddb
should be built on top of ddbc wrapping it into fiber-friendly async API
but I don't know if this is possible with ddbc design.

Reply via email to