Nicola Musatti wrote:
Jeff Garland <jeff <at> crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
Nicola Musatti wrote: [...] [...] Well before I even consider engaging this discussion, why not help SOCI get into boost instead of inventing a new interface? We have several proposals and half-finished libraries, but the real problem is that we don't have an actual reviewed and accepted library to put into Boost. Are you going to have time to really develop this library from scratch?
Just to make this clear: I have absolutely nothing against a boostified version of SOCI being accepted into Boost and eventually submitted to the Committee for inclusion in a future TR or directly into the Standard.
However I am concerned about the suitability of some of the interface choices made by the SOCI developers. I started writing my own library because I felt that my arguments would carry more weight with a concrete implementation to support them, however experimental, and because starting from scratch with Boost
Thanks for the clarification. I think it is an excellent idea that we have a review of the interfaces and discuss the trade-offs. That helps the SOCI authors get an accepted interface before the review. So in that context, code is always more powerful to demonstrate.
In my view, SOCI has all the qualities to succeed as a Boost library including a clean, good documentation, support for multiple databases, and several developers to support it. So maybe you should start by downloading, installing, and reviewing the SOCI interface in comparison to what you are thinking?
My example is the result of comparing SOCI's API with that of similar, proprietary libraries I'm familiar with and trying to think about the best way to transform those in a standard compatible API.
Thx for the clarification :-) Jeff