In some email I received from "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> on 02 Jul 2003 10:38:11 -0400, wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 07:33, lou wrote: > > Magnus, > > all this sounds great, that means the codebase will create a barrier > > between > > both APIs also a gap which will limit the whole idea for one generic API, > > which would save time and resources writing more code and more code and > > more code.. > > Don't we already have two code bases? Yes, there are two: 1) MySQL 2) PgSQL But loads of the stuff in there are so similar that a 3d generic API which wraps/combines both MySQL/PgSQL codebase > I mean, all the IMAP commands are > implemented separately depending on which DB is choosen at compile > time. I didnt mean IMAP only and specifically but in general about MySQL and PgSQL APIs. > I don't see the difference between this, and choosing to embed > the commands in the server via triggers and other server side stored > procedures. there's a difference and I pointed it out, somewhere back.. >I would think we could / would still have two separate > files for implementing database commands, the mysql one would be much > larger than the pgsql most of the code was moved to the database > creation script. I think using stored procedures on the server are an > advantage in many ways. Nobody disagrees that SP and func and trig are not an advantage but it's not good to do the same job twice for 2 different databases, i'm talking about huge chunks of code reuse and so. cheers
