HI, Well, what you say sounds harsh... but is not too far from truth, sadly. What happens is that current manpower for every task is very limited (it's me)... and well, urgent stuff is always hunting us. We have the willing, and we have spent some time on it, but it will be a lot easier if there is also community effort put on improve things... every single bugfix, comment or whatever helps, but also more important efforts are needed.
We would bless any effort/collaboration in that direction. I suppose we can also put bounties to fulfil certain tasks (that's how first DBXTalk suite was made). To have a description of what we need (a list of features, etc.) would be cool too. cheers, Esteban On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > Esteban, > > On 02 Oct 2014, at 20:43, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 2014-10-02 15:19 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl>: > >> Esteban wrote: > >>> Are you using/planning to use PostgresV3? > >> > >>> What are its advantages over current driver (PostgresV2)? > >> > >> I was puzzled that a smart developer like Levente > >> decides not to use Glorp. > > > > I don't want to sound harsh, but there is no VISIBLE interest from the > > Pharo board/committee regarding ORM and/or RDBMS support other than a > > CI task. Few days ago I asked a question in the Pharo-Business > > regarding this, and got NO REPLY. > > > > This week I was looking into Python's SQLAlchemy [1] to find how close > > it is to GLORP current features, and also found out how far it > > seems/feels to a small > > community like ours. Not to mention things like jOOQ[2] ([1] provides > > some of its features though). > > > > I'm making no demands here, just giving my opinion about a "business > > feature" (DBs) that I'd like better supported. > > I understand your pain, you're looking for people that are in the same > boat, apparently there aren't that many. But there certainly are some (I > use(d) Glorp+PostgresV2 myself, I believe Mariano does too), but it seems > nobody wants to take the lead to push this (even) further. I am not sure > this is necessarily bad, RDBMS does not move that much, but it would > obviously be better to have more users. > > We are a small(er) community, it is what it is, but we are growing. > > >> And I wondered why SqueakDBX decided to use V2 instead of V3, > >> a protocol introduced in 2003 or so. > > > > Is the V2/V3 spec a PostgreSQL protocol spec or something made up in > > the Squeak community? > > I know something changed in PgSQL protocols around version 7.2. > > V2 and V3 are indeed two different wire level protocols for a DB client to > talk to PostgreSQL. Obviously, V3 came after V2, it should be considered an > improvement, but V2 remains supported. As far as I understood it, V3 is > binary while V2 is text oriented, the former should be faster. I am sure > there are feature lists comparing the two somewhere out there. > > Of course, the implementation quality of the driver is important too to > get good performance. > > We'll see how far Stephan gets, I am interested. I really hope we can get > the V3 code running in Pharo without too much compatibility issues. > > > Esteban A. Maringolo > > [1] http://www.sqlalchemy.org/ > > [2] http://www.jooq.org/ > > Sven > > >
