Re: RFC on other database wrapper modules

2005-07-21 Thread Gav.... 
It's a shame I think you only got the two responses back,
but I don't really think I know enough to contribute to
what you are asking.

Gav...

- Original Message - 
From: Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dbi-users@perl.org
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: RFC on other database wrapper modules


| Thanks for the 2 responses I got for this email.  They are aggregated
| below for your perusal.  Next I will go and write my Lightning Talk.
| -- Darren Duncan
|
| --
|
| At 7:05 AM -0400 7/19/05, John Siracusa wrote:
| On 7/19/05 5:05 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
|   Also list the features the modules do provide that you wouldn't want
|   to give up, particularly if very few modules support those features
|   and others don't.
| 
| I use a module (Rose::DB) that parses and formats db-specific column 
values
| for me: various kinds of dates, SETs, arrays, all the crazy db-specific
| data types that are a pain to manually parse and then format.  Very few 
DBI
| abstraction modules provide this feature, but IMO it's essential.
| 
| -John
|
| --
|
| At 2:58 PM + 7/19/05, Terrence Brannon wrote:
| Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| 
|   This is a quick RFC concerning database wrapper modules and
|   frameworks, large and small, which are quite common on CPAN;
|   specifically it concerns such things that are not any of my creations.
| 
|   I am going to propose a Lightning Talk for OSCON in the next few days
|   (deadline is July 22, a practice is on July 19th) on the subject of
|   databases and SQL generation and portability and such things.
| 
| 
| The best survey of database wrappers I have seen is here:
| 
| 
 http://search.cpan.org/~evo/DBIx-SQLEngine-0.93/SQLEngine/Docs/Related.pod
|
| --
|
|
| -- 
| No virus found in this incoming message.
| Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
| Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 20/07/2005
|
| 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 20/07/2005

Re: RFC on other database wrapper modules

2005-07-21 Thread Jeff Zucker 

Darren Duncan wrote:

the focus or sole content of my Lightning Talk (assuming it is 
accepted) will be to introduce my 'Rosetta' plus 'SQL::Routine' modules


I'm looking forward to it.

Beginning DBI users at OSCON might also consider attending my tutorial 
The Basics of Perl DBI, given on Monday morning, see :


   http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/os2005/view/e_sess/6910

Anyone for a DBI BOF?  please post at

   http://conferences.oreillynet.com/pub/w/38/bof.html

Thanks!

--
Jeff

Re: RFC on other database wrapper modules

2005-07-20 Thread Darren Duncan 
Thanks for the 2 responses I got for this email.  They are aggregated 
below for your perusal.  Next I will go and write my Lightning Talk. 
-- Darren Duncan


--

At 7:05 AM -0400 7/19/05, John Siracusa wrote:

On 7/19/05 5:05 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:

 Also list the features the modules do provide that you wouldn't want
 to give up, particularly if very few modules support those features
 and others don't.


I use a module (Rose::DB) that parses and formats db-specific column values
for me: various kinds of dates, SETs, arrays, all the crazy db-specific
data types that are a pain to manually parse and then format.  Very few DBI
abstraction modules provide this feature, but IMO it's essential.

-John


--

At 2:58 PM + 7/19/05, Terrence Brannon wrote:

Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


 This is a quick RFC concerning database wrapper modules and
 frameworks, large and small, which are quite common on CPAN;
 specifically it concerns such things that are not any of my creations.

 I am going to propose a Lightning Talk for OSCON in the next few days
 (deadline is July 22, a practice is on July 19th) on the subject of
 databases and SQL generation and portability and such things.



The best survey of database wrappers I have seen is here:

http://search.cpan.org/~evo/DBIx-SQLEngine-0.93/SQLEngine/Docs/Related.pod


--

RFC on other database wrapper modules

2005-07-19 Thread Darren Duncan 
This is a quick RFC concerning database wrapper modules and 
frameworks, large and small, which are quite common on CPAN; 
specifically it concerns such things that are not any of my creations.


I am going to propose a Lightning Talk for OSCON in the next few days 
(deadline is July 22, a practice is on July 19th) on the subject of 
databases and SQL generation and portability and such things.


Without naming names, I want to address all the important features 
that users want out of modules and frameworks for SQL generation, 
portability, easier-of-use, etc.


Please reply and summarize or list all the things you want to do with 
such modules but can't do easily or at all; eg, what kind of database 
features and SQL constructs and features do you want to use that the 
modules you otherwise like don't provide an API for.  That is, what 
kinds of tasks do you still have to write raw SQL statements and/or 
SQL fragments for because there is no alternative to doing so, or the 
alternative is unpleasant enough to avoid.


Also list the features the modules do provide that you wouldn't want 
to give up, particularly if very few modules support those features 
and others don't.


Alternately, if you were going to use a single SQL generator / 
database wrapper exclusively for all of your tasks, what types or 
functionality would it need, including ease of use features.


Please write back to me asap, either in private or on list as 
appropriate, but keep in mind that I will post the aggregated 
responses on the forum anyway.


While you can name names in your responses, I will not be naming any 
particular modules you bring up in my talk, but just talk about 
common issues.


Thank you in advance for any help. -- Darren Duncan

RFC on other database wrapper modules

2005-07-19 Thread Darren Duncan 
This is a quick RFC concerning database wrapper modules and 
frameworks, large and small, which are quite common on CPAN; 
specifically it concerns such things that are not any of my creations.


I am going to propose a Lightning Talk for OSCON in the next few days 
(deadline is July 22, a practice is on July 19th) on the subject of 
databases and SQL generation and portability and such things.


Without naming names, I want to address all the important features 
that users want out of modules and frameworks for SQL generation, 
portability, easier-of-use, etc.


Please reply and summarize or list all the things you want to do with 
such modules but can't do easily or at all; eg, what kind of database 
features and SQL constructs and features do you want to use that the 
modules you otherwise like don't provide an API for.  That is, what 
kinds of tasks do you still have to write raw SQL statements and/or 
SQL fragments for because there is no alternative to doing so, or the 
alternative is unpleasant enough to avoid.


Also list the features the modules do provide that you wouldn't want 
to give up, particularly if very few modules support those features 
and others don't.


Alternately, if you were going to use a single SQL generator / 
database wrapper exclusively for all of your tasks, what types or 
functionality would it need, including ease of use features.


Please write back to me asap, either in private or on list as 
appropriate, but keep in mind that I will post the aggregated 
responses on the forum anyway.


While you can name names in your responses, I will not be naming any 
particular modules you bring up in my talk, but just talk about 
common issues.


Thank you in advance for any help. -- Darren Duncan