Re: [Gnumed-devel] vote on postgres interface

[Alan O'Keefe]

Hi Horst

Well, if this was a commercial product there would be an argument
for retaining a generic database interface, but as it isn't, we
should be sticking with databases which are available on the 
same/similar licensing schemes, (ie. free).  This being the case
postgreSQL is really the only reasonable option, (mySQL transactions
still aren't what they should be).

Then again, (jumping over the fence), it's good to provide your users
with some choice, (maybe someone will want to use an ODBC interface
to something like MS SQL-Server ;-) ).

My vote, cleaner, more elegant code outweighs portability in
this scenario.

Regards
Alan

On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 16:40, Horst Herb wrote:
> I know that it was me who initiated the change towards the DBI compliant 
> interface. At that time I thought we had a giood reason to do so.
> However, this assumption was not quite right.
> Without any major additional benefit (as the independence from 
> interfaces prooved to be non-existent), it
> - created additional dependency (mxDateTime)
> - made the code less readable
> - made several statements neccessary where one would be enough
> 
> Expecting to be flamed, I therefore propose to switch back to the good 
> old "pg" interface as it comes now as standard with postgres
> Benefits:
> - no more dependence on mx (which often creates headaches)
> - easier more intuitive coding
> - possibly faster code (less type casting neccessary, more "natural" 
> interface to libpq)
> - better interoperability with postgres specific tools like pgnotify (?)
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Horst
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnumed-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
-- 
Alan O'Keefe
O'Keefe Systems Consulting
email:  address@hidden
Phone:  +61 413 517168        Fax:    +613 97408893