On 2013.05.09 7:56 AM, Paolo Bolzoni wrote:
Seriously? Care to explain?
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Petite Abeille <petite.abei...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 9, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Romulo Ceccon <romulocec...@gmail.com> wrote:
But my application is (so far) database agnostic
Reconsider. Agnosticism is not a feature. It's a bug.
Its more accurate to say that agnosticism is about tradeoffs, which can be
either mild or severe depending on context, and making tradeoffs could be
considered as having bugs.
Some DBMSs have features that others don't and sometimes the "best" solution for
using a particular DBMS is to exploit features unique to it, even if you can't
do that with other DBMSs. Working to the least common denominator exclusively
in order to support less capable DBMSs means you don't exploit lots of features
that will help you when using other DBMSs that support them.
Working around the non-use of these features can make the applications less
capable or more complicated or buggy as often the application's version of
something is inferior to what the DBMS provides.
I find that a hybrid approach is best, support multiple DBMSs, but don't be
afraid to draw the line and say you don't support some, where their capabilities
would drag things down too much. Especially in this world where many options
are free, and as long as you at least support some of those, your potential
users can use a different DBMS than otherwise easily to use your app.
-- Darren Duncan
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
