On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:47:36AM -0400, D. Richard Hipp scratched on the wall: > Community feedback is requested for the following proposed new SQLite > C API: > > int sqlite3_open_v3(const char*, sqlite3**, int, const char*);
> Question 1: Are there any objections to this approach? I like it. It solves a lot of problems in a clean way. > Question 2: Are there other foibles that we could correct using > sqlite3_open_v3? If I ask for the DB to be open read-write, and it can only be open read-only, I'd prefer it be an error (or, let me know my request was not fully serviced). The automatic fall-back of sqlite3_open_v2() to opening read-only can be a pain to deal with, and I see few advantages to it. That, or provide some kind of API to get the state of a database connection. An extension to sqlite3_file_control() maybe? -j -- Jay A. Kreibich < J A Y @ K R E I B I.C H > "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor." "I'll go home and see if I can scrounge up a ruler and a piece of string." --from Anathem by Neal Stephenson _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
