11.08.2014 13:45, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > 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.
This is exactly the developer's position, at least how I understand it myself ;-) IBPP is C++ only and too high-level. The FB API should be lower-level and language-independent. The legacy ISC API mostly serves this goal (although it's not that low-level really, some hidden conversions/movements happen there), but it's showing its age. So we attempted to offer a modern replacement with the v3 OO API. IBPP can still act as a high-level C++ wrapper, FIBPlus/FireDAC/whatever would act the same for Delphi, etc. They just need to be ported to the new core API (whatever it will be). Dmitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
