On Sunday, October 09, 2011 16:31:35 Sean Kelly wrote: > On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > On 10/9/11 5:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > >> On 10/9/2011 5:28 AM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote: > >>> 1. I think that we should not design this API using the least common > >>> denominator > >>> approach. This is to not limit some databases. For example > >>> PostgreSQL > >>> has many > >>> great features not available in MySQL. That's why I started with > >>> postgres in my > >>> ddb project. I think DB API should be designed to support the most > >>> featureful > >>> databases and those that have less features may be easily adapted to > >>> that API. > >> > >> Haven't common denominator designs been more or less failures in at > >> least one category - gui libraries? > > > > A common database interface is not a common denominator API; more like > > the opposite. This is not difficult because most differences across > > database systems lie in their SQL, which is strings from D's > > perspective. > Assuming that by "database" you mean SQL. Pretty fair assumption, though > NoSQL databases (which cover a broad range of designs since there's no > standard language yet for key-value DBs, etc) are rapidly gaining > popularity. I almost wonder if the base type should be named SqlDatabase > instead of Database.
If we were to do that, then maybe it should just be sql, since it's shorter and just as clear: std.sql.*. - Jonathan M Davis