"Andreas Pokorny" <andreas.pokorny@gmx.de> wrote
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 09:17:18AM -0400, Arkadiy Vertleyb <vertleyb@hotmail.com> wrote:
The RTL was discussed on this list at some time in the past. The early version of RTL is described in the March 2004 issue of CUJ. The main difference from currently discussed RML is that we decided against using SQL - like interface, and use the relational algebra-based interface instead.
The most important part for a library like that, is the ability to have the table stored in a file, and only partially mapped into memory. So
It's important, but I wouldn't say "most important". For many tasks having the ability to serialize tables should be enough.
some tree datastructure like a B+tree is an important requirement for a database library. Any chance that this will happen soon? Maybe you remember that I started an attempt to write such a datastructure, but I lost myself in details and had to give up, as soon as exams took most part of my free time.
So, "Any chance that this will happen soon?" :)
From the interface point of view, I also prefer the relational algebra "syntax". It somehow looks more familiar to me.
The RTL can currently be compiled with VC7.1 or GCC 3.3+ (although with GCC there might still remain some naming conflicts between MPL and STL, that show up with certain usages)
Because gcc also considers structures when doing adl of a function call?
Yes.
In some previous, and also private discussions you mentioned that you would like to have RTL rewritten, because you made some tradeoffs to support older versions of gcc and vc. Is that versions the overall rewrite?
No, this is just the port to Boost 1.33 (vary little changes, in fact). I would not think it should be fully rewritten, though, just re-factored to simplify the implementation. A few design choices, made in the very beginning, mostly related to the lack of partial template specialization in VC6... Nevertheless I wanted to once more attract people's attention to the library because the interest to relational issues seems to pop-up, and again, I don't believe to mimick SQL is the right way to go. The SQL was designed as yet another attempt to try to make computers understand a language that looks more or less like plain English. Now I don't think that even database comunity considers it a way to proceed. One of the main things that prevented us from moving forward, was not enough interest, but now we can re-consider this -- the number of downloads seems pretty high :) Regards, Arkadiy