> It's certainly possible. I haven't looked at the Oracle C API(s), but I would > estimate it would take between one and two thousand lines of Racket code. > ODBC support, for comparison, currently takes about 1500 lines. More > features, like interval types and asynchronous execution, will add to that. > > What benefits would "native" Oracle support provide (compared to ODBC) to > justify the cost?
Better speed (at least in theory; benchmarks would be required). > It sounds like you want some kind of abstract SQL syntax. I'll probably try to > do something like that. Exactly. > > 2. A generic library (probably written in C / C++) that provides all > > the low-level trappings for #1. > > 3. A set of drivers (written in C / C++), one for each RDBMS, that #2 > > uses when configured to talk to that particular RDBMS. > > Why would I write C code when I could write Racket code? These are > currently done using Racket and, when necessary, FFI bindings. I am a noob regarding FFI, so I don't know what must be done in C and what can be done in Racket. C is the usual way to go for this kind of thing in other languages. > Ryan -- Gonzalo Diethelm _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
