From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id GAA24714; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:51:09 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA25768 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:51:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from gradient.cis.upenn.edu (GRADIENT.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.67.48]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id i0U5p7P18970 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:51:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from gradient.cis.upenn.edu (pcp04129979pcs.walngs01.pa.comcast.net [68.81.45.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by gradient.cis.upenn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0U5p3Ca002323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:51:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4019F0B1.6050204@gradient.cis.upenn.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:50:41 -0500 From: Josh Burdick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031030 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Jones CC: Inria Ocaml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] PostgreSQL-OCaml 1.0.1 References: <20040128232131.GA22126@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <20040129200653.GA14321@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040129200653.GA14321@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; gradient:01 caml-list:01 1.0.1:01 postgres:01 dbi:99 dbi:99 structs:01 postgres:01 gradient:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 anyways:02 module:03 wrote:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Richard Jones wrote: >>>From my point of view (mod_caml depends on the postgres support) it >would be nice to have just one library to work with. Perhaps combine >the best features of both into a single release? > > If there's going to be a "new improved version", I think maybe it should work with multiple databases. ODBC, JDBC, and DBI all attempt this. There could be a signature (perhaps called "DBI" to appeal to Perl people , and structs Postgres, MySQL, Oracle, etc., which implement this. Different databases have varying levels of standards-conformance, of course, and there's all sorts of variation between databases, so I wouldn't expect one to be able to take one OCaml program written with this interface, and blithely switch databases, especially for complicated stuff. But you should be able to write simple "select * from customers"-type queries, against any database, without totally re-working your OCaml code. Database independence seems like a good goal to move towards. If there's going to be potential interface changes anyways, now might be a good time to plan a more general interface. (I used the old Postgres module, and it worked well.) Josh Burdick jburdick@gradient.cis.upenn.edu >Rich. > > > ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners