On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:03, Dave Jarvis wrote: > Hello, Pete. > > > punts on database neutrality and just prays that the SQL between > > databases is identical. And of course everyone who has worked with SQL > > knows that this is far from being true. > > You got me on this one. If you write SQL using specific database > extensions (i.e., non-ANSI SQL), then you will be tying yourself to a > particular flavour of database. This is a very important aspect that, > on a practical level, seriously needs further research. In the ideal > world, of course, all SQL would port gracefully between database > vendors. ;-)
Nice but not always possible. For instance in some databases like Access (or is that a pseudo-database ;-] ) you need to quote datetime values with # characters rather than ' characters. No way to "fix" that ... besides not using Access ;) > > How do you handle different quoting requirements for different databases? > > How do you handle different databases id generators? How do you handle > > difference X ? > > If you really need to do something different, and you want to abstract > it so that it's all in one place, you can wrap it in a function > (generateNextID): ... snip ... Only viable if your application is generating the IDs. This is not always the case. Many (most?) databases have some sort of "generator", "sequence" or "unique" column. In this case you want the database to manage the key generation. Some databases require you to pass in a function name in sql, some require you to omit the column in insert altogether and theres probably some that require you to do completely different things. > And lastly, I will admit I'm open to ideas on how this could be > implemented in a simple, straightforward fashion. :-) Useful pointers > to research is appreciated! Persistence layers, OR tools and the like. Turbine Torques an example of a relatively good layer - nicest to use I have found in opensource world. Then you have more highend solutions like EJBs entity beans. The person everyone thinks highly of in persistence world is "Scot Ambler" - never read his work but it would be worth looking at his stuff. > I have no doubts about the performance of the architecture. Most of the > grunt work was already done for me (by lots of people whose work I > admire and appreciate): loading XML, parsing XML, rendering an XML > document, translating it into XSL, encapsulating HTTP, etc. The only > layer I add is a simple set of statements that allow people to talk with > a database, file systems, and remote servers. And I throw in a state > machine for good measure. The bottleneck isn't BOX. ;-) > > How does Cocoon perform under the same minimal conditions as above? impossible to say without doing direct comparisons with comparable complexity etc of pages. However it sounds like similar performance to Cocoon1 based apps (Do you use DOM?). Cocoon2 is much faster, though I have never used it. It would be best to query their group to get proper statistics. -- Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to | | their level, and beat you with experience | *-----------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
