Hi all, maybe I am going beyond good manners in suggesting this, but maybe we should keep any discussion about the merits of the SQL standard overall and how that does or does not relate to drizzle in a separate thread.
Let's keep this thread for the problem at hand, that is, first and foremost: - consistent identifier handling, as mentioned first by Jay I feel the quoting issue is part of this problem too, although I think it need not stall the original issue (as the choice of delimitert character does not seem too important to keep other work on sanitizing identifier behaviour) If you feel that I myself needlessly polluted this thread with standards talk, then I sincerely apologize. kind regards Roland. On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Alex Esterkin <[email protected]> wrote: > So, are you suggesting that an Open SQL standard is needed and that the > existing ANSI SQL standards are closed and partially impractical? And that > Drizzle SQL will become the new Open SQL Standard? > > - Alex Esterkin > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Tim Soderstrom <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Yo Jim! >> >> I'm curious as to what your thoughts are in regards to the fact that the >> standard isn't itself open? Correct me if I'm wrong, but every-time >> something is added, removed, or changed in Drizzle in terms of syntax, some >> guy that happens to have a copy of said standard has to validate it? To me, >> in an open source world, that doesn't make any sense. >> >> I know there's stuff in the official SQL standard that doesn't make any >> practical sense. Implementing those would be, well, impractical :) Drizzle's >> core is probably not going to need to worry about many of these anyway since >> they are, if I remember correctly, in relation to views, procedures, objects >> (I think?), etc. Alot of that seems like it would be a pluggable module into >> Drizzle anyway. >> >> So, while bucking the standard isn't a good idea in the grand scheme of >> things, I think there could be times where it could make sense to do so. The >> difference is that I think Drizzle's SQL standard should be openly published >> and freely available for others to implement. In fact, I'd say all the open >> source DB's and the DB platforms that care should work on an Open SQL >> standard and adhere to that. >> >> Until we have an Open SQL standard, while inherently I agree with you, I'm >> not so sure Drizzle needs to worry so much about the closed SQL standard. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Drizzle is mostly compliant, or at least will >> be depending on what people decide about those terrible back-ticks. Any >> place were Drizzle deviates can't be by much since Drizzle doesn't support a >> huge number of things from the standard in the core. So if Drizzle is just a >> little off, I would think a simple migration script would allow migrating to >> and from multiple DBs. That's not ideal, but then again, neither is having >> to pay money for a silly standard. >> >> $0.02 >> >> Tim >> >> P.S. If I'm totally wrong about any of that, feel free to openly flame >> away :) >> >> >> On May 3, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Jim Starkey wrote: >> >>> At the risk of boring everyone to death, I'd like to explain a bit more >>> about why I continue to push a standard I don't like. >>> >>> In the computer world, like many others, there comes a time where a >>> technology is good enough. At that point, something better has a very high >>> bar to acceptance. Yes, this leads to less than optimal standards, but a >>> good enough standard allows folks to concentrate on newer and more >>> interesting stuff. Lotus 1-2-3 was good, but not good enough. Excel, on >>> the other hand, is widely regarded as good enough, sufficiently good that >>> competing against it is pointless. X-11 is another example. X-10 wasn't >>> good enough, X-11 is. Sun's News and display postscript were both better >>> than X-11, but not sufficiently better to bother with. >>> >>> When the marketplace speaks, one should either listen or prepare for a >>> life a deep frustration. >>> >>> SQL is clearly good enough. It had all sorts of competitors, all of >>> which are nearly forgotten. SQL won more or less fair and square -- there >>> were multiple implementations of SQL, mostly incompatible, a couple of >>> implementations of QUEL, a couple of implementations of the DEC/Interbase >>> language, and any number of forgotten one-offs. >>> >>> Due to pressure from users, the various SQL implementations have >>> gradually coalesced around an official standard. The process was ugly and >>> rigged, but the world spoke very clearly that it wanted a standard database >>> language, and those products that wished to ignore the standard would be >>> punished. >>> >>> MySQL has an idea that it sets it own standard. This is not only >>> horseshit, but blatantly anti-democratic horseshit. It is the same >>> horseshit that Oracle and Ingres tried to pull with non-standard SQL and >>> QUEL -- languages that they controlled and the rest of the world be damned. >>> >>> The MySQL attitude toward SQL is stupid, ignorant, short sighted, >>> arrogant, and just plain wrong. Interoperability with the rest of the world >>> is important because it lets people use database software to solve one set >>> of problems so they can concentrate on other sets of problems. Throwing >>> roadblocks in front of users that both impede acceptance of drizzle or MySQL >>> and, not incidentally, prevent users from converting to other systems, is >>> profoundly unfortunate. >>> >>> So, drizzle, join the world or thumb your nose at it and go your own way. >>> But please don't proclaim out of one side of your mouth that you are a SQL >>> database system and out the other that you aren't willing to go beyond lip >>> service to the standard. >>> >>> When you have semantics beyond the standard, by all means go your own >>> way. Innovation should not be stifled by a standard. But if the only >>> motivation for divergence from the standard is to show the world that you're >>> smarter than everyone else (or, in the case of MySQL, too dumb to fix it), >>> give it up and get a life. >>> >>> Let the counter-rants begin. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jim Starkey >>> President, NimbusDB, Inc. >>> 978 526-1376 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss >>> Post to : [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > -- Roland Bouman http://rpbouman.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
