Mark, I expressed concern last week that there was too much "heat" on the list and got told that passion was good - you can't win :(
You said "Personally I'd say that Firebird should at minimum have a low-level API (which the current ibase.h provides, although it has some annoyances)". In a nutshell, this seems to be where the argument lies. If the developers agreed that the existing low level API would continue to be maintained and to support new functionality then most of us would move on and get on with our lives, and if the Firebird developers want to develop a second C++ API - then that's their problem. Unfortunately, the response seems to be that everyone should move to the new C++ API and if your preferred programming language can't support it - well that's your problem. There needs to be a compromise - but at the moment it seems hard to see a middle way. On 11/08/14 10:45, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:18:58 +0100, Tony Whyman > <tony.why...@mccallumwhyman.com> wrote: > > I think this discussion is getting a bit out of control. I for one still > have tens of unread messages on this subject, but I get the feeling people > are talking past each other instead of with each other. > > I think we **first** need to establish the use case(s) for the API(s), and > the target audience of the interface(s), then we should establish the needs > for these use cases and audiences and only then should we discuss > implementation options. > > I believe I have seen the following use cases: > * Connecting/querying Firebird > * Plugin development > * Provider development > > And target audience: > * Firebird developers > * Driver developers > * Plugin/provider developers(?) > * Application developers > > To illustrate: you seem (?) to be speaking from the perspective of a > target audience who use the interface in application development, and where > you don't want to deal with all the nitty gritty low-level details, here > IBPP is probably a good fit (but as I haven't used it, I can't say). > > However speaking as the developer of Jaybird, I don't want an API that > will perform too many conversions or work that I will need to redo to make > it work the same or similar as the wire protocol implementation, and to > make it work within the rules established by JDBC. In that case an API that > does too much heavy lifting is actually a hindrance (or at minimum a > potential performance bottleneck). > > These are already two - somewhat - conflicting needs. Personally I'd say > that Firebird should at minimum have a low-level API (which the current > ibase.h provides, although it has some annoyances). A higher level API > (like IBPP) to do some of the heavy lifting for application development is > a nice to have. And as you say: it already exists: IBPP. > > For the rest of the discussion: I think we need to take a step back and do > a proper analysis. > > Mark > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
