From: gabriele renzi <surrender_it@...1.vip.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: 2004-01-10T08:11:39+09:00
Subject: Re: Database applications and OOness

il Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:18:53 +0900, "Weirich, James"
<James.Weirich@FMR.COM> ha scritto::


>DBI is that common interface (and is modelled on the Perl DBI ... I suspect
>Python's is likewise modelled on Perls). 

right. but every dbms binding has a different basic api. Why this
useless duplication? 
(Probably that may be useful, and I'm just too stupid to understand
why)

>DBI comes with a set of drivers
>(DBDs) for each type of database supported.  The DBDs each talk to the
>native C API library to access the actual database. I think you are
>advocating merging the DBD and the native library into one entity, but I'm
>not sure what that would accomplish.

I'm pushing the elimination of a level of indirection.
 Why  a wrapper library(an additional pkg, additional version
matching, distribution pains, api to learn, maybe slowness cause dbi
is pure ruby) + a native library, if we could have just native
libraries?

When you have stuff that you may simplify you refactor, am I right? ;)

>Perhaps it is more of a packaging
>issue rather than a code issue.

Having RubyGems + CPAN-like archive (RubyGemMine?) may hide the
problem, I really agree (and *I* don't mind if it's just hidden)

BTW, thanks for the answers, I'm really curious about the community
ideas on this subject :)