bnich...@ca.afilias.info (Brad Nicholson) writes:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>> As with phrases like, "the quickest way to grill a unicorn steak,"
>>> that it can be stated in a few words does not make in possible.
>>
>> Exactly. The big issue here is that nobody's saying what kind of app
>> they wan
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:27:20 -0700
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:55:36PM -0400, Brad Nicholson wrote:
> > Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > >>As with phrases like, "the quickest way to grill a unicorn
> > >>steak," that it can be stated in a few words does not make in
> > >>possible.
>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:55:36PM -0400, Brad Nicholson wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >>As with phrases like, "the quickest way to grill a unicorn steak,"
> >>that it can be stated in a few words does not make in possible.
> >
> >Exactly. The big issue here is that nobody's saying what kind of
Scott Marlowe wrote:
As with phrases like, "the quickest way to grill a unicorn steak,"
that it can be stated in a few words does not make in possible.
Exactly. The big issue here is that nobody's saying what kind of app
they want to write.
Or what sort of performance requirements are
> As with phrases like, "the quickest way to grill a unicorn steak,"
> that it can be stated in a few words does not make in possible.
Exactly. The big issue here is that nobody's saying what kind of app
they want to write.
If it's a simple web content management system, the possibility of
havin
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:14:10PM +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Monday 21 June 2010, Lew wrote:
> > Sim Zacks wrote:
> > >> database agnostic code is theoretically a great idea. However, you
> lose
> > >> most of the advantages of the chosen database engine. For
> example, if
> > >> you su
e pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité
pour le contenu fourni.
> From: david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] A thought about other open source projects
> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:14:10 +0100
>
> On Monday 21 June 2010
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 08:35:02AM -0400, Lew wrote:
> David Goodenough wrote:
> >I don't support anyone has written a "how to write database
> >agnostic code" guide? That way its not a matter of porting, more a
> >matter of starting off right.
>
> There is no real way to write "database[-]agnost
On Monday 21 June 2010, Lew wrote:
> Sim Zacks wrote:
> >> database agnostic code is theoretically a great idea. However, you
lose
> >> most of the advantages of the chosen database engine. For
example, if
> >> you support an engine that does not support relational integrity you
> >> cannot use d
David Goodenough wrote:
I don't support anyone has written a "how to write database agnostic
code" guide? That way its not a matter of porting, more a matter of
starting off right.
There is no real way to write "database[-]agnostic" SQL, although of course
middleware code can and should be.
Sim Zacks wrote:
database agnostic code is theoretically a great idea. However, you lose
most of the advantages of the chosen database engine. For example, if
you support an engine that does not support relational integrity you
cannot use delete cascades.
The most efficient way is to have a separ
On Sunday 20 June 2010 12.52:22 Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> I don't believe in "database agnostic code".
Using a db abstraction may be the right way to write "database agnostic
code".
I have quite a good impression of SQLAlchemy, for example: it is quite
generic, and it is still possible to write
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:08:34AM +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Sunday 20 June 2010, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On lör, 2010-06-19 at 22:56 +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > These projects need help to realise that adding Postgresql is
> > > not a big job, especially for those using JDBC
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:52:22 +0200
Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> David Goodenough wrote on 20.06.2010 11:08:
> > I don't support anyone has written a "how to write database
> > agnostic code" guide? That way its not a matter of porting,
> > more a matter of starting off right.
>
> I don't believe in
David Goodenough wrote on 20.06.2010 11:08:
I don't support anyone has written a "how to write database agnostic
code" guide? That way its not a matter of porting, more a matter of
starting off right.
I don't believe in "database agnostic code".
In the end it basically means that the applicat
On Sunday 20 June 2010, Sim Zacks wrote:
> database agnostic code is theoretically a great idea. However, you lose
> most of the advantages of the chosen database engine. For example, if
> you support an engine that does not support relational integrity you
> cannot use delete cascades.
> The most
database agnostic code is theoretically a great idea. However, you lose
most of the advantages of the chosen database engine. For example, if
you support an engine that does not support relational integrity you
cannot use delete cascades.
The most efficient way is to have a separate backend module
On Sunday 20 June 2010, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2010-06-19 at 22:56 +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
> > These projects need help to realise that adding Postgresql is not a
> > big
> > job, especially for those using JDBC which can already connect to all
> > DBs. It strikes me that if the
On lör, 2010-06-19 at 22:56 +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
> These projects need help to realise that adding Postgresql is not a
> big
> job, especially for those using JDBC which can already connect to all
> DBs. It strikes me that if the project could write a few pages
> gleaned
> from other por
19 matches
Mail list logo
