Re: Call for review: Database API for the GNADE Project

["Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk>]

"Michael Erdmann" <michael.erdmann@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:3C318524.98C9035A@snafu.de...

> > My preference would be for Module SQL (92). Is your API intended to be
at a
> > level below this?
>
> Please could you clarify this a little bit. The GNADE project already
provides
> and embedded SQL preprocessor, so i am not sure what you realy mean by
> this.

Simply that the choice I would personally prefer (usually) for
database-access support within Ada programs is Module SQL. I wouldn't mind
in the least if the same macro/pre-processor approach were taken to the SQL
module files, e.g. translating them into the equivalent Ada code.

Such Ada code would need to have a low-level method of accessing the
database(s); I was wondering if the API you are suggesting is intended for
this purpose (or is it for use directly by application software?).

The nice thing about Module SQL is that it does separate the SQL bit from
the Ada code (unlike Embedded SQL). This means that you could, for example,
rewrite a module in Ada (e.g. if the data was no longer coming from or going
into a database), and know that (provided it replicated the behaviour of the
module's procedures) the rest of the Ada program will be unaffected.

I must admit, I would like a way -- even if it were a bit yukky -- to add
datatypes beyond the standard SQL 92 canon. Of course lots of SQL3 features
would be handy, but I get the impression that's an issue (SQL3 has yet to be
convincingly accepted by the mainstream database companies).

--
Happy New Year,
Nick Roberts