2014-10-02 17:26 GMT-03:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>: > Esteban, > > On 02 Oct 2014, at 20:43, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2014-10-02 15:19 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl>: >>> Esteban wrote: >>>> Are you using/planning to use PostgresV3? >>> >>>> What are its advantages over current driver (PostgresV2)? >>> >>> I was puzzled that a smart developer like Levente >>> decides not to use Glorp. >> >> I don't want to sound harsh, but there is no VISIBLE interest from the >> Pharo board/committee regarding ORM and/or RDBMS support other than a >> CI task. Few days ago I asked a question in the Pharo-Business >> regarding this, and got NO REPLY. >> >> This week I was looking into Python's SQLAlchemy [1] to find how close >> it is to GLORP current features, and also found out how far it >> seems/feels to a small >> community like ours. Not to mention things like jOOQ[2] ([1] provides >> some of its features though). >> >> I'm making no demands here, just giving my opinion about a "business >> feature" (DBs) that I'd like better supported. > > I understand your pain, you're looking for people that are in the same boat, > apparently there aren't that many. But there certainly are some (I use(d) > Glorp+PostgresV2 myself, I believe Mariano does too), but it seems nobody > wants to take the lead to push this (even) further. I am not sure this is > necessarily bad, RDBMS does not move that much, but it would obviously be > better to have more users. > > We are a small(er) community, it is what it is, but we are growing.
The quid here is who takes the lead, I said I could contribute and code, but taking the lead on a project requires more than coding skills. The point that RDBMS is a stable thing a benefit in this case, and that's why those who use GLORP today (like me), only got bitten by a few bugs due to an outdated port. And as long as we use PostgreSQL we'll be in the safer zone. >> Is the V2/V3 spec a PostgreSQL protocol spec or something made up in >> the Squeak community? >> I know something changed in PgSQL protocols around version 7.2. > > V2 and V3 are indeed two different wire level protocols for a DB client to > talk to PostgreSQL. Obviously, V3 came after V2, it should be considered an > improvement, but V2 remains supported. As far as I understood it, V3 is > binary while V2 is text oriented, the former should be faster. I am sure > there are feature lists comparing the two somewhere out there. > Of course, the implementation quality of the driver is important too to get > good performance. I haven't reached any limits of the V2 driver yet. If I have a bottleneck it is down the DB or at the app level. Thank you!
