On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Tim Bunce wrote:
> If you're trying to create a wider standard with support in vendor
> tools then best to come back when there's wider support and some
> implementations existing.
Good idea. I'll do that.
> Alternatively write a DBI subclass to do-the-right-thing.
I could
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 12:33:40AM +0100, Hans Schou wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Hans Schou wrote:
> > > But making dbi:// a default prefix will probably restrict the use of
> > > DBURL to only DBI. It is not realistic to think that MySQL and
> > >
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Considering that it sounds like you want to embed your DBURL
> implementation into the DBI interface spec itself, then why is
> DBI-specificity a problem?
Oops, wrong answer before. I want to use DBURL with the command line
tools psql and mysql. Konque
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Hans Schou wrote:
> > But making dbi:// a default prefix will probably restrict the use of
> > DBURL to only DBI. It is not realistic to think that MySQL and
> > PostgreSQL would implement such a naming scheme, where as the original
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Hans Schou wrote:
> But making dbi:// a default prefix will probably restrict the use of
> DBURL to only DBI. It is not realistic to think that MySQL and
> PostgreSQL would implement such a naming scheme, where as the original
> idea might be accepted.
Considering that it soun
On Nov 29, 2004, at 2:46 PM, Hans Schou wrote:
But making dbi:// a default prefix will probably restrict the use of
DBURL to only DBI. It is not realistic to think that MySQL and
PostgreSQL would implement such a naming scheme, where as the original
idea might be accepted.
It'd be a cinch for the d
