On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Luís Santos <lsan...@itquality.com.br> wrote: > Javier Guerra escreveu: >> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Luís Santos <lsan...@itquality.com.br> >> wrote: >> I'd love to have an ORM in Lua, it's a long-needed thing; but when i >> write SQL, it _must_ be relayed to the DB engine byte-by-byte >> verbatim. >> > > I this case, you could use the underlying 'driver' module -- that might even > be LuaDBI.
As i see it, there should be three layers: - 'driver': low level, might have specialized API - LuaSQL: unified API, but _must_not_ touch my SQL - SQL generators: ORMs and others. prepared statements and parameter bindings should be available at LuaSQL level. I'd hate to use speicalized API's for everything. in fact, the 'driver' should be as invisible to the user as possible. > The question is: we can't keep the current level of abstraction and still > provide some fo the needed demands. We have work for different layers, and I > don't believe LuaSQL is meant to be the 'inner' layer. It doesn't have a > proper API for that, and I am not too eager to break the current one. there are missing from the API, but don't see how it's inapropriate for the current use. if you want to do some renaming, and call LuaSQL some currently inexistant high level layer, and call LuaDBI what is currently LuaSQL, then i won't complain, as long as there's a unified, mostly DB-agnostic, layer that won't mess with my SQL. of course, i fail to see what would be gained by such renaming -- Javier _______________________________________________ Kepler-Project mailing list Kepler-Project@lists.luaforge.net http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kepler-project http://www.keplerproject.org/
