rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid ) (10/28/89)
As Sybase puts it, "the DB-Library approach is distinctly
different from the 'embedded SQL' type of host language
interface that some database management systems provide".
Sybase says they feel that the library approach is superior
to the embedded approach. My problem is I disagree -
I like to have the choice; and the embedded code is for
me in most cases easier to write and maintain.
So the question is, are there any vendors anyone knows
of that offer a preprocessor that
take my C code with its embedded SQL and turn it into
something DB-Library will eat?
I'd really prefer not to have to write it myself.
--
Ro
rreid@esquire.dpw.com
{phri|cucard}!hombre!cmcl2!esquire!rreid
rlr@woof.columbia.edu
* My user names have changed - please update aliases. *john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) (10/29/89)
In article <1528@esquire.UUCP> rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid ) writes:
]
]As Sybase puts it, "the DB-Library approach is distinctly
]different from the 'embedded SQL' type of host language
]interface that some database management systems provide".
]
]Sybase says they feel that the library approach is superior
]to the embedded approach. My problem is I disagree -
]I like to have the choice; and the embedded code is for
]me in most cases easier to write and maintain.
This is one of the reasons we rejected Sybase during our
selection process for a RDBMS on which to base our main product
(hotel central reservation systems).
--
John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john
(602) 861-7607 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum
7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253
The 2nd amendment is about military weapons, NOT JUST hunting weapons!jas@postgres.uucp (James Shankland) (10/31/89)
In article <850@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >In article <1528@esquire.UUCP> rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid ) writes: >]Sybase says they feel that the library approach is superior >]to the embedded approach.... The embedded code is for >]me in most cases easier to write and maintain. > >This is one of the reasons we rejected Sybase during our >selection process for a RDBMS on which to base our main product.... Just as SQL has become the standard relational query language, embedded SQL seems to have become the standard relational interface for programming languages. Personally, I'm with Sybase on the technical merits: I prefer the library approach. But the market has spoken, and the market says "embedded SQL." jas
davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (10/31/89)
In article <1528@esquire.UUCP> rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid ) writes:
Sybase says they feel that the library approach is superior
to the embedded approach. My problem is I disagree -
I like to have the choice; and the embedded code is for
me in most cases easier to write and maintain.
Hmmm, does the fact that there is usually little support for embedded
languages amongst traditional implementation facilities ever bother you? For
instance, I have not found any version of indent(1) or cb(1) that will parse
all embedded language constructs correctly. Also, limitations in the embedded
language parsers often get in my way (DEC's RDML preprocessor bit me recently
when it recognized a comment delimiter within a C string as being an actual
comment delimiter which it promptly close for me!). Utilities like Yacc and
Lex (even C++ preprocessing) do not handle embedded languages too well (if at
all). In short, if you like writing straightforward programs from scratch in
a language supported by the embedded language processor, then the embedded
approach may be "easier to write and maintain" (personally, I think that is
just a question of ones mindset). However, if you plan to stray outside this
environment, you may find the embedded approach more of a headache than
anything else.
--
===================================================================
David Masterson Consilium, Inc.
uunet!cimshop!davidm Mt. View, CA 94043
===================================================================
"Nobody here but us chickens..."