On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 02:17, Francisco Figueiredo Jr. wrote: > On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 18:03, Reggie Burnett wrote: > > >> Marco > >> > >> Though I haven't had a lot of time lately to update it, I have been the > >> general maintainer of the MySQL provider named ByteFX.Data. It is > pure C# > >> and has been accepted has the replacement for the original > Mono.Data.MySql > >> provider (which used libmysql.so) > > > Hi Marco, I hope you don't mind I answer some of the questions which > also apply to Npgsql, a data provider for Postgresql which works on Mono > and also in MS runtime. Thanks Daniel Morgan and Mono Team, it was > accepted as one provider for Postgresql on Mono. > Oh really thanks! > > > >What're the motivations that conduced you to implement a provider in > >pure C#? > > The main motivation was to work with a type of programming I like most: > middleware software (I mean, any software piece which is not directly > related to user application but in its infrastructure) and the > opportunity to implement a protocol. > Also, there is the dependency issues. IMHO, with the 100% managed > provider you don't have to worry about .so/.dll files. I mean, I looked > at Java model, and I think the model 4 drivers are much more flexible > and so, I tooked the same approach when developing Npgsql. > > >Isn't it more difficult to mantain than the wrapper over > >libmysqlclient.so? > > I think that at first it could be more difficult. As you have to do all > the work which already exists in the .so/.dll. But once you did the base > code, things start to become less harder. > > > > Is the right man power allocated for this project? > > I think so. At gborg we have already some good guys helping and here at > Mono we got more good guys too. > > > What kind of maturity has MySQLNEt reached? > > Npgsql will be short in the 0.5 version (I wil be doing a new release > soon). It already supports a lot of expected functionality and support > for most common datatypes (bool, int2, int4, int8, timestamp, text and > numeric). It allows you to work with datasets, the dataadapter allows > you to select, insert, update and delete data. you have transaction > support and md5 authentication. There are many bugs yet, and many > features missing as connection pool, support for user data types, but I > hope we can get it working soon. :) > > > > > In another mail Marco asks: > > >But what I wanna know is: is it really faster than the wrapper? > >And if yes, does the gap between them justifie the effort of mantaining > >a native provider? > > I didn't do this comparison. But at long time, I think it could be as > fast as or faster, as we would not use managed<->native code calls and > the jit would allow us to get a performance close to native code. > > Thanks for attention, and please let me know if I said anything wrong.
Well, I don't see anything wrong in what you said. In the next week i'll start to test your stuff. Many thanks to you. -- Marco Canini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
