On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 09:58:22 UTC, Suliman wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 09:52:53 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Suliman via
Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com>
wrote:
[...]
Would need to see the full exception stack
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 09:52:53 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Suliman via
Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com>
wrote:
This code compile and run:
try {
auto result = cmd.executeQuery;
foreach (row; result)
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Suliman via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> This code compile and run:
>
> try {
>auto result = cmd.executeQuery;
>
>foreach (row; result)
>{
> writeln(row[0]);
>
This code compile and run:
try {
auto result = cmd.executeQuery;
foreach (row; result)
{
writeln(row[0]);
x = row[1].get!(ubyte[]);
}
}
catch (ServerErrorException e) {
// Probably table
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 08:47:43 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Suliman via
Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 15 February 2016 at 22:50:56 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj
wrote:
On 2016-02-14 20:48, Eugene Wissner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Suliman via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 15 February 2016 at 22:50:56 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
>
>> On 2016-02-14 20:48, Eugene Wissner wrote:
>>
>>> I think may be we should discuss if we can/should change
On Monday, 15 February 2016 at 22:50:56 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
On 2016-02-14 20:48, Eugene Wissner wrote:
I think may be we should discuss if we can/should change
something in
ddb. I think there were some interesting and promising ideas
in this
discussion. Maybe split the PostgreSQL driver
On 2016-02-14 20:48, Eugene Wissner wrote:
I think may be we should discuss if we can/should change something in
ddb. I think there were some interesting and promising ideas in this
discussion. Maybe split the PostgreSQL driver and develop it seperately
and use an interface more similar to JDBC.
On 2016-02-14 17:53, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
ddb was written with multiple databases in mind, mostly postgres, mysql
and sqlite. db.d (DBRow definition) is database independent. postgres.d
contains PGConnection, PGCommand, etc. Other backends should provide
their own classes like MySqlConnection,
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:48:49 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2016-02-14 00:32, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> Ideally ddb should be built on top of ddbc wrapping it into
>> fiber-friendly async API but I don't know if this is possible with ddbc
>> design.
>
> It looks like libpg has support for
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 at 16:53:31 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
On 2016-02-14 12:48, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
It seems both ddb and ddbc had the same idea, building a
library
accessing databases independently of the kind of database. The
difference is that ddb does not seem to have the
my five cents on that topic...
@Eugene:
From my point of view, it would be great if you could bring in
all your ideas, wishes, changes, additions and new stuff into
vibe_d and help to grow and extend it and make it more usable...
Don't get me wrong, I thinks it's great if developers have
On 2016-02-14 00:32, Dicebot wrote:
Ideally ddb should be built on top of ddbc wrapping it into fiber-friendly
async API
but I don't know if this is possible with ddbc design.
It looks like libpg has support for asynchronous calls [1] but ddbc does
not use them. Also, although libpg
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 05:02:07 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj
wrote:
Ddb is a relational database client for D [1]. Currently it
only supports PostgreSQL but is not limited to it. It could be
extended to support other backends.
Built-in postgres client is a native implementation, that is it
Am 13.02.2016 um 11:03 schrieb Eugene Wissner:
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 05:02:07 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Ddb is a relational database client for D [1]. Currently it only
supports PostgreSQL but is not limited to it. It could be extended to
support other backends.
Built-in postgres
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 12:57:50 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 13.02.2016 um 11:03 schrieb Eugene Wissner:
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 05:02:07 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj
wrote:
Ddb is a relational database client for D [1]. Currently it
only
supports PostgreSQL but is not limited to it.
Hey Eugene,
Caraus seems like an interesting project. How do you plan to build it out
and differentiate it from vibe.d?
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Eugene Wissner via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 12:57:50 UTC,
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 05:02:07 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj
wrote:
Ddb is a relational database client for D [1]. Currently it
only supports PostgreSQL but is not limited to it. It could be
extended to support other backends.
Built-in postgres client is a native implementation, that is it
On 2016-02-13 16:20, Suliman wrote:
But we already have ddbc, that work pretty fine. Its better to force
developing of it
ddb is a Postgres client completely written in D. It does not use libpg,
which ddbc does. It's also compatible with the IO model of vibe.d. I
would say that any database
On 2016-02-13 06:02, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Ddb is a relational database client for D [1]. Currently it only
supports PostgreSQL but is not limited to it. It could be extended to
support other backends.
Built-in postgres client is a native implementation, that is it does not
depend on libpq.
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 14:52:46 UTC, Adil Baig wrote:
Hey Eugene,
Caraus seems like an interesting project. How do you plan to
build it out and differentiate it from vibe.d?
Difficult to explain it in a few sentences in a foreign language,
but I'll try. Just don't hesitate to ask
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 15:20:26 UTC, Suliman wrote:
But we already have ddbc, that work pretty fine. Its better to
force developing of it
I also looked into ddbc before. And it is a great thing since it
is similar to the well known jdbc. I didn't like that it just
wraps
On 02/13/2016 09:33 PM, Eugene Wissner wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 15:20:26 UTC, Suliman wrote:
>>
>> But we already have ddbc, that work pretty fine. Its better to force
>> developing of it
>
> I also looked into ddbc before. And it is a great thing since it is
> similar to the
23 matches
Mail list logo
