Re: [PHP-DEV] Sybase and Sybase-CT and MSSQL, oh my?

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Frank M. Kromann wrote:

> I would also like to see ext/mssql and ext/sybase merged into one extension,
> as they both use the same DB-Librery. Changing the functionsnames to dblib_*
> would also be the right, as long as we keep aliases_* to sybase and mssql_*
> for some time.

Hmm.  I see some clear benefits to moving the extension to ext/dblib, but I'm
not sure how much it's to the benefit of consumers of this extension if the
function names are changed to dblib_*.  In comparison, the functions from
ext/sybase_ct all simply use the sybase_ prefix, with mssql_* aliases, even
though the extension name is neither 'sybase' nor 'mssql'.  This, I think, is
what users of the API are looking for; they don't care if the underlying
implementation uses ctlib, dblib, or something else.

OTOH, using dblib_* as the authoritative names does have the advantage of
putting the 'mssql' and 'sybase' monikers on equal footing.  In my patch to
ext/mssql (which I'll forward to you separately, so as not to clutter the
list), I've completely reversed the precedence of mssql_* vs sybase_* with
the reasoning that 'sybase' is the more historically accurate name for this
library -- but I don't want to turn the CVS tree into a battlefield between
Unix and Windows supporters. :)

> I havent started implementing a new MSSQL extension yet for two resons. 1) I
> would like to have the extension working on more than one platform and 2) I
> have a dialog with Microsoft about an updated version of there DBLibrary,
> but it is going very slow.

Hmm, would be interesting if they did update DBLibrary...

> I have also thaught about writing my own system based on OLE DB. An OLE DB
> service (broaker) should be installed on an NT/2000 box and a client library
> should be installed on NT/2000/Linux/Unix. This would allow the client to
> request data from the broker and the broker could query any OLE DB provider
> available.

How would this compare with the existing ODBC-based extension?

Cheers,
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Sybase and Sybase-CT and MSSQL, oh my?

[Frank M. Kromann]

Hi Steve,

I would also like to see ext/mssql and ext/sybase merged into one extension, as they 
both use the same DB-Librery. Changing the functionsnames to dblib_* would also be the 
right, as long as we keep aliases_* to sybase and mssql_* for some time.

As you say this will cause more use and therefore testing, but we will also be able to 
focus more development time to implement improved support for stored procedures and 
other functions.

I havent started implementing a new MSSQL extension yet for two resons. 1) I would 
like to have the extension working on more than one platform and 2) I have a dialog 
with Microsoft about an updated version of there DBLibrary, but it is going very slow.

I have also thaught about writing my own system based on OLE DB. An OLE DB service 
(broaker) should be installed on an NT/2000 box and a client library should be 
installed on NT/2000/Linux/Unix. This would allow the client to request data from the 
broker and the broker could query any OLE DB provider available.

- Frank

> Hi Frank,
> 
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Frank M. Kromann wrote:
> 
> > > I can't help but notice that MSSQL, Sybase, and Sybase CT-Lib each have their
> > > own PHP extension.  What I wonder if many people have /not/ noticed is that
> > > two of these extensions implement the same C API on different platforms (mssql
> > > targetted for Windows systems, sybase targetted for Unix systems), and all
> > > three implement the same database protocol on the wire.
> 
> > This was true for MSSQL 4.x and 6.x but the databases and the protocol have
> > evolved different in the two products (MSSQL vs. Sybase) since. Microsoft
> > has not updated DBLibrary since version 6.x so there is a few features
> > available in 7.0 and 2000 there is unsupported in the PHP extension. If
> > Microsoft decides not to update DBLibrary I will start rewriting the
> > extension using a more up to date protocol in order to support all features.
> > I would furthermore prefer to develop the extension to work from both Win32
> > and *nix clients.
> 
> If you choose to rewrite an MS SQL extension using Microsoft's new client API,
> I hope that PHP will still retain *one* extension built on top of dblib.
> CT-Lib and Microsoft's new APIs are more feature-rich than dblib, but dblib is
> the most portable of the three, so it makes sense to keep an extension around
> that's built on dblib -- /if/ PHP makes use of its cross-platform
> capabilities, that is. :)
> 
> Perhaps the best choice would be to merge ext/mssql and ext/sybase into a
> single module that's named for what it really is -- ext/dblib.  This leaves
> the namespace clear for a future ext/mssql built on top of a different API.
> 
> I'm not sure how you would write an extension on top of Microsoft's new API
> that works on Unix systems, however.  Has Microsoft released client libraries
> for Unix?
> 
> > > In light of this, would it not be to everyone's advantage to consolidate
> > > developer efforts and merge the ext/mssql and ext/sybase modules?  (Providing
> > > appropriate PHP_FALIAS wrappers for backwards compat, of course.)  I can't
> > > imagine that there is so much difference between these two codebases that we
> > > need one extension with a .dsp file and one extension with a config.m4 file.
> 
> > The MSSQL extension (on Win32 only) do have a few functions more but these
> > could be ported into one of the Sybase extensions.
> 
> Ok, but then you're talking about porting -- which means that every time a new
> feature is added to one extension, someone also has to port /that/ feature to
> the other extension, as well.
> 
> What is the advantage here to keeping *two* dblib extensions around, instead
> of one that has all the features of both?  It may be a little easier to be
> able to ignore compatibility with other platforms, but I'd certainly be
> happier to see one extension that gets twice as much use (and therefore
> testing).
> 
> > I dont know muct about Subase and Sybase-ct but I agrre that these extension
> > should be combined into one, with aliases and functionality from the mssql
> > extension to allow access to MSSQL Server 4.x and 6.x from Win32 and *nix
> > clients.
> 
> The differences between the Sybase and Sybase-CT extensions lie in the
> underlying C APIs that they invoke.  Combining these is not feasible.
> Combining ext/mssql and ext/sybase is very feasible -- I've done much of the
> rewriting already, I just need to get my development box back on-line before I
> can share it.
> 
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
> 
> 
> -- 
> PHP Development Mailing List 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 




-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mai

Re: [PHP-DEV] Sybase and Sybase-CT and MSSQL, oh my?

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Frank,

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Frank M. Kromann wrote:

> > I can't help but notice that MSSQL, Sybase, and Sybase CT-Lib each have their
> > own PHP extension.  What I wonder if many people have /not/ noticed is that
> > two of these extensions implement the same C API on different platforms (mssql
> > targetted for Windows systems, sybase targetted for Unix systems), and all
> > three implement the same database protocol on the wire.

> This was true for MSSQL 4.x and 6.x but the databases and the protocol have
> evolved different in the two products (MSSQL vs. Sybase) since. Microsoft
> has not updated DBLibrary since version 6.x so there is a few features
> available in 7.0 and 2000 there is unsupported in the PHP extension. If
> Microsoft decides not to update DBLibrary I will start rewriting the
> extension using a more up to date protocol in order to support all features.
> I would furthermore prefer to develop the extension to work from both Win32
> and *nix clients.

If you choose to rewrite an MS SQL extension using Microsoft's new client API,
I hope that PHP will still retain *one* extension built on top of dblib.
CT-Lib and Microsoft's new APIs are more feature-rich than dblib, but dblib is
the most portable of the three, so it makes sense to keep an extension around
that's built on dblib -- /if/ PHP makes use of its cross-platform
capabilities, that is. :)

Perhaps the best choice would be to merge ext/mssql and ext/sybase into a
single module that's named for what it really is -- ext/dblib.  This leaves
the namespace clear for a future ext/mssql built on top of a different API.

I'm not sure how you would write an extension on top of Microsoft's new API
that works on Unix systems, however.  Has Microsoft released client libraries
for Unix?

> > In light of this, would it not be to everyone's advantage to consolidate
> > developer efforts and merge the ext/mssql and ext/sybase modules?  (Providing
> > appropriate PHP_FALIAS wrappers for backwards compat, of course.)  I can't
> > imagine that there is so much difference between these two codebases that we
> > need one extension with a .dsp file and one extension with a config.m4 file.

> The MSSQL extension (on Win32 only) do have a few functions more but these
> could be ported into one of the Sybase extensions.

Ok, but then you're talking about porting -- which means that every time a new
feature is added to one extension, someone also has to port /that/ feature to
the other extension, as well.

What is the advantage here to keeping *two* dblib extensions around, instead
of one that has all the features of both?  It may be a little easier to be
able to ignore compatibility with other platforms, but I'd certainly be
happier to see one extension that gets twice as much use (and therefore
testing).

> I dont know muct about Subase and Sybase-ct but I agrre that these extension
> should be combined into one, with aliases and functionality from the mssql
> extension to allow access to MSSQL Server 4.x and 6.x from Win32 and *nix
> clients.

The differences between the Sybase and Sybase-CT extensions lie in the
underlying C APIs that they invoke.  Combining these is not feasible.
Combining ext/mssql and ext/sybase is very feasible -- I've done much of the
rewriting already, I just need to get my development box back on-line before I
can share it.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Sybase and Sybase-CT and MSSQL, oh my?]

[Jo Giraerts]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 08:58:32AM -0500, Brian Foddy wrote:
> "Frank M. Kromann" wrote:
> 
> > I dont know muct about Subase and Sybase-ct but I agrre that these extension 
>should be combined into one, with aliases and functionality from the mssql extension 
>to allow access to MSSQL Server 4.x and 6.x from Win32 and *nix clients.
> > 
> > - Frank
> 
> 
> Actually these are the two most dis-simmilar API sets.  The original
> Sybase (DB-LIB) has a completely different API set than SYbase_CT
> (CT-LIB).
> Trying to merge these would probably be more work than its worth.
> Also, some people have the low level CT libs, others have the DB Libs.
> Which one would you link against?

i think it's a good idea to keep em seperate for ct-lib is still
evolving, but db-lib isn't. 

> 
> Brian
> 
> -- 
> PHP Development Mailing List 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Jo Giraerts
Computerprutser
Life BVBA
Interleuvenlaan 15A, 3001 LEUVEN, BELGIUM
icq:81939849, email:[EMAIL PROTECTED], ph0ne:+32(0)16 20 89 61 
pgp-key available at: http://www.keyserver.net. 
fingerprint: 81EE B1FD 88E2 A03A 4F49 6D8A 806E 2220 9C2F 918B 

I've got these opium queens that move around my space, 
I said it's waste not, want not, 
I think I'll take another, 
I'm holding all this pain that I'm trying to smother.


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Sybase and Sybase-CT and MSSQL, oh my?]

[Brian Foddy]

"Frank M. Kromann" wrote:

> I dont know muct about Subase and Sybase-ct but I agrre that these extension should 
>be combined into one, with aliases and functionality from the mssql extension to 
>allow access to MSSQL Server 4.x and 6.x from Win32 and *nix clients.
> 
> - Frank


Actually these are the two most dis-simmilar API sets.  The original
Sybase (DB-LIB) has a completely different API set than SYbase_CT
(CT-LIB).
Trying to merge these would probably be more work than its worth.
Also, some people have the low level CT libs, others have the DB Libs.
Which one would you link against?

Brian

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Sybase and Sybase-CT and MSSQL, oh my?

[Frank M. Kromann]

> I can't help but notice that MSSQL, Sybase, and Sybase CT-Lib each have their
> own PHP extension.  What I wonder if many people have /not/ noticed is that
> two of these extensions implement the same C API on different platforms (mssql
> targetted for Windows systems, sybase targetted for Unix systems), and all
> three implement the same database protocol on the wire.

This was true for MSSQL 4.x and 6.x but the databases and the protocol have evolved 
different in the two products (MSSQL vs. Sybase) since. Microsoft has not updated 
DBLibrary since version 6.x so there is a few features available in 7.0 and 2000 there 
is unsupported in the PHP extension. If Microsoft decides not to update DBLibrary I 
will start rewriting the extension using a more up to date protocol in order to 
support all features. I would furthermore prefer to develop the extension to work from 
both Win32 and *nix clients.
 
> In light of this, would it not be to everyone's advantage to consolidate
> developer efforts and merge the ext/mssql and ext/sybase modules?  (Providing
> appropriate PHP_FALIAS wrappers for backwards compat, of course.)  I can't
> imagine that there is so much difference between these two codebases that we
> need one extension with a .dsp file and one extension with a config.m4 file.

The MSSQL extension (on Win32 only) do have a few functions more but these could be 
ported into one of the Sybase extensions.

> Are there other reasons why PHP developers would prefer not to combine these
> two extensions into one?
 
I dont know muct about Subase and Sybase-ct but I agrre that these extension should be 
combined into one, with aliases and functionality from the mssql extension to allow 
access to MSSQL Server 4.x and 6.x from Win32 and *nix clients.

- Frank




-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]