Hi! Voting needed below, please read!
Thanks to all who responded with the valuable feedback. It sounds like we need to support '?' for other APIs, and I think supporting both numeric and string IDs will be trivial on top of this. String IDs generally have a ':' prefix, so we'll stick with that (ie, ':name'). One question is what prefix character to use for numeric IDs, since I see both '?' and ':' conventions. Which would folks prefer: 1: INSERT INTO foo VALUES(?, ?1) 2: INSERT INTO foo VALUES(?, :1) 3: Some other convention. Also, should numeric IDs start at 0 or 1? Next up, I think there is agreement in simplifying the API for passing values in. We can look at a separate set of functions later for parsing/reusing prepared statements either on the server or client, but for now I want to nail down the API to pass in values. I saw mixed feelings on supporting only string vs a few native types (for example, int). Only allowing one type simplifies the interface quite a bit, so for the query: drizzle_query(drizzle, "INSERT INTO foo VALUES(:name, :age)", values, 2); Which would folks prefer: 1: String only interface drizzle_value_st values[2]; values[0].id= "name"; values[0].data= "Eric"; values[0].size= 4; values[1].id= "age"; values[1].data= "28"; values[1].size= 2; 2: Supports string, ints, other basic types with type safety (enum/union) drizzle_value_st values[2]; values[0].id= "name"; values[0].type= DRIZZLE_VALUE_STRING; values[0].data.str.ptr= "Eric"; values[0].data.str.size= 4; values[1].id= "age"; values[1].type= DRIZZLE_VALUE_INT32; values[1].data.i32= 28; 3: Supports string, ints, other basic types with no type safety (void *) drizzle_value_st values[2]; int32_t age= 28; values[0].id= "name"; values[0].type= DRIZZLE_VALUE_STRING; values[0].data= "Eric"; values[0].size= 4; values[1].id= "age"; values[1].type= DRIZZLE_VALUE_INT32; values[1].data= &age; values[1].size= 4; /* sizeof(int32_t), could optionally omit and trust enum */ 4: Some other convention. My preference would be 1, but if we do want multiple types, I'd prefer 2 over 3 for the type safety. If 2 is the most popular, looking for suggestions on better union/struct naming as well. :) Thanks! -Eric On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:42:52AM -0700, Eric Day wrote: > Hi! > > We've decided to add the prepared statement API sooner than later, > and I've been looking into various ways of mapping variables in. There > are simple '?' with order of appearance determining order into the > array of vars, there are '$1', '$2', ... which would allow you to > repeat or do things out of order. Or the SQLite method of '?nnn' or > ':aaa' and also allow identifies. > > What are folks thoughts on PS APIs? Anything they really love or hate? > > We're also thinking of restricting vars to strings for now, but > possibly simple INT types. Other types could still be given as vars, > but they'd just be passed in as strings. > > Thanks! > -Eric _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
