On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 20:31:35 -0300, Sean Kelly <s...@invisibleduck.org>
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.
There is a standard language defined for NoSQL, namely UnQL:
http://wwww.unqlspec.org/display/UnQL/Home
Roald
