On 25/02/2018 10:07 PM, Denis F wrote:
On Sunday, 25 February 2018 at 03:03:05 UTC, Joe wrote:
On Saturday, 24 February 2018 at 23:04:39 UTC, Denis F wrote:
If anyone really want to impliment your idea, at my first glance at
the PEP 249 I had a feeling that this is work for time less than a
1-2 weeks. It can be a simple wrapper over dpq2, mysql-native,
sqlite3, etc.
I'm not saying that anyone should implement something like PEP 249,
particularly *not* as a wrapper over those libraries. My point is that
if the implementors of dpq2, mysql-native, etc., could "get together"
(at DConf, in forums, by email) and discuss their interfaces, perhaps
they could agree on a set of D database interface classes and then
each would work towards that common set.
Libraries already are similar automatically because RDBMSes uses similar
principles. But it is impossible to make libraries absolutely identical
due to the presence of important significant nuances in each engine.
That's more or less what the Python DB-SIG did. Then every library
would benefit because, for one, the common set can be documented just
once. Also, if it's a sufficiently reasonable spec, the libraries that
don't move towards it should see less adoption because, unless the
divergent library has a significantly enhanced interface, developers
will shy away from having to learn a different one.
It's the same concept as the SQL (and other) Standards.
Ok, I propose to be consistent and ask for compliance with the Standard
from the RDBMSes. For example, arguments substitution:
MySQL uses the '?'
PostgreSQL uses $1
SQLite accepts both
Oracle uses a :name
(Really, it is very important to come to an agreement here because, for
sure, the next obvious step is writing an ORM generator on top of the
idea what you are proposing.)
On IRC earlier today we discussed database libs a bit, we agreed that
both "?" and "@name" needed to be supported. No other suggestions came
up. We don't really need a third or fourth form I think.
