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 LAA09131; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:24:50 +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 LAA08718 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:24:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net (rabelais.socialtools.net [81.2.94.243]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id i0UAOnP26438 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:24:49 +0100 (MET) Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 108) id 908A123341; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:24:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from socialtools.net (chaucer.socialtools.net [81.2.94.242]) by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77C923340; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:24:45 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <401A30ED.6090007@socialtools.net> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:24:45 +0000 From: Benjamin Geer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, fr, it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vitaly Lugovsky Cc: Josh Burdick , Richard Jones , 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> <4019F0B1.6050204@gradient.cis.upenn.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on rabelais.socialtools.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 1.0.1:01 vitaly:01 lugovsky:01 dbi:99 abstraction:01 api:01 caml:01 financial:96 wrote:03 let:04 rewrite:04 efficiency:05 efficient:05 efficient:05 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Vitaly Lugovsky wrote: >> 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. > > It was already discussed here. The conclusion was: BAD IDEA. No > way to work efficiently with different DBs using the same > approach. In the company I work for (a large financial software vendor), the unanimous answer would be 'we don't care if it's less efficient; nothing else is acceptable.' Our customers insist on being able to use our products with whatever database they prefer (and certainly our competitors' products can do this). We simply cannot afford to rewrite and maintain all our database-related code for every one of those databases. For us (and, I think, for most software vendors, certainly all the ones I've worked for) the additional abstraction is well worth a slight loss of efficiency. It is quite efficient enough for us. The lack of a standard database API is one of the things that, unfortunately, would make it very difficult for me to convince my boss to let me use Caml. Ben ------------------- 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