Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well benefits that boil down to "Java sucks" aren't very convincing. Perl > > suffers from no such handicap. > > Arguing that Java-specific benefits are not convincing benefits for a JDBC > driver because you don't get them in Perl seems a bit odd to me. You're not > implementing the driver in Perl!
Er, we're kind of on two different wavelengths here. What I'm trying to determine are what are the benefits of writing a pure-perl driver versus one that implements the protocol in a C module, versus one that merely interfaces with libpq. The current Perl module interfaces with libpq. The closest analogue to use for comparison is the JDBC driver which is a pure-Java implementation. So the benefits and disadvantages the JDBC driver faces are useful data points. However benefits that arise purely because of quirks of Java and don't relate to Perl are less relevant than benefits and disadvantages that are more general. I wasn't trying to criticize the decisions behind the JDBC implementation. It may well be that the choice that makes sense for Java isn't the same as the choice that makes sense in other languages. Or it may be that there are lessons that can be learned from Java that generalize to other languages and a pure perl implementation may make sense. -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
