TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:29:47 -0500
Reply-To:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
> Unless something else pops It looks like my options are
>   1) Use thin bindings to whatever C library the DB vendor supplies.
>   2) Write thick bindings to the vendor supplied C library.
>   3) Use thin bindings to ODBC.
>   4) Use Pascal Obry's bindings to ODBC.
>
> .....  Choice 2 requires a lot of work, but if ... done properly,
> .... Only the package body
> for the bindings would have to be rewritten for each RDBMS.
>
> If I can't find a better solution I'm leaning toward #2.  I'd rather
> not reinvent wheels I don't have to, namely the package specification.

If you are going to re-write the body anyway, can you use #4 as a starting
point?

--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

ATOM RSS1 RSS2