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.
