[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Database connectivity
- From: Daurnimator <quae@...>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:05:46 -0500
On 19 February 2015 at 15:53, Geoff Leyland <email@example.com> wrote:
> However, since it didn’t operate quite like the sqlite3 binding I’d been using (lsqlite3), I wrote a wrapper to make the two look more similar. Since postgres doesn’t seem to support named query parameters, I faked those. Since some of the pgsql stuff was nicer than the lsqlite3 stuff, I wrapped lsqlite3 too.
> So now I have a half-assed, yet-another, database connectivity tool. It doesn’t actually do the connectivity bit, it just makes the calls to other dbcs look the same (of course doesn’t fix the different dialects of SQL, except for parameter syntax). It offers prepared queries and query parameters, which, as far as I can tell, LuaDBI and LuaSQL don’t. On the other hand, it’s so not finished that it’s barely started.
> Any interest from anyone that such a thing should be let out into the light of day?
Precisely because SQL dialects are different, I gave up trying to
treat them the same, and just use the client for the database at hand.
If you do try and have a common subset, it just means you miss out on
the cool advanced features.
It's probably nice going all the way and making every database work
the same, but IMO that's a multi-year project,
The existing implementations being JDBC and sqlalchemy; and they still
are missing things.
So, I probably would not use your library unless you put quite a lot
of effort in;
This would include things like non-blocking forms, and consistent
encodings (e.g. MySQL you need utf8mb4).