On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:14:28 +0100, Tony Whyman <tony.why...@mccallumwhyman.com> wrote: > Mark, > > I expressed concern last week that there was too much "heat" on the list > and got told that passion was good - you can't win :(
Passion is good, until it becomes an obstacle. > You said "Personally I'd say that Firebird should at minimum have a > low-level API (which the current ibase.h provides, although it has some > annoyances)". > > In a nutshell, this seems to be where the argument lies. If the > developers agreed that the existing low level API would continue to be > maintained and to support new functionality then most of us would move > on and get on with our lives, and if the Firebird developers want to > develop a second C++ API - then that's their problem. Extending the current API of ibase.h has its own challenges (eg assumption of 16 bit string length), and annoyances like confusing parameters (types, meaning) and parameter order. Last week I used a generator to generate a JNA interface (a way of calling native libraries from Java without writing C or C++ code yourself) and that generator got pretty confused because the Firebird API doesn't follow some of the conventions assumed by that generator. I had to fix some of this by hand. A replacement API might be better (although I admit that has its own challenges and costs). > Unfortunately, the response seems to be that everyone should move to the > new C++ API and if your preferred programming language can't support it > - well that's your problem. > > There needs to be a compromise - but at the moment it seems hard to see > a middle way. Agreed. Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
