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 JAA00939; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:23:48 +0100 (MET) 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 JAA00606 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:23:47 +0100 (MET) From: Alain.Frisch@ens.fr Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id i0U8NkP07877 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:23:47 +0100 (MET) Received: from clipper.ens.fr (clipper-gw.ens.fr [129.199.1.22]) by nef.ens.fr (8.12.10/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id i0U8NjaW008991 ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:23:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (frisch@localhost) by clipper.ens.fr (8.12.3/jb-1.1) id i0U8Ni7Y013489 ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:23:44 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: clipper.ens.fr: frisch owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:23:44 +0100 (MET) X-X-Sender: frisch@clipper.ens.fr Reply-To: Alain.Frisch@ens.fr To: Josh Burdick cc: Inria Ocaml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] PostgreSQL-OCaml 1.0.1 In-Reply-To: <4019F0B1.6050204@gradient.cis.upenn.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; alain:01 frisch:01 caml-list:01 1.0.1:01 dbi:99 dbi:99 structs:01 postgres:01 api:01 abstraction:01 alain:01 backend:01 bindings:01 bindings:01 afaik:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Josh Burdick 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. There could be a signature (perhaps called "DBI" to appeal to > Perl people , and structs Postgres, MySQL, Oracle, etc., which implement > this. IMHO, such a standard interface should be kept separated from engine-specific bindings. The idea is to have specific bindings that follow closely the "official" C API for a given engine, which allows the programmer to refer easily to the documentation of the C interface and to access all the advanced and non standard features of his database backend. Then you can build on top of such bindings higher levels of abstraction in order to expose a common subset with a unified interface. This issue has been raised several times on this mailing list, and no consensus has been reached on a common interface (AFAIK). -- Alain ------------------- 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