From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-15 18:42:01
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:38:57 +0300, Yuval Ronen wrote
> Jeff Garland wrote:
> > I'd still really like to see a database binding library make it into
> > TR2. Not having this is killing C++ against Java for application
> > developers. We've had some periodic fits and starts, but it seems clear
> > we won't have a Boost library by then. I'd still like to see someone
> > with some time step up and take this on. It's been done about 10 times
> > so I think a proposal could be gleaned from the best of the current
> > bindings...
>
> All this database talks made me a bit puzzled. What's exactly the
> standard committee can do about database interface? I mean, does
> specifying a standard interface for database means that I can write
> code that uses this interface and then I'll find my self reading
> data from a database?
Yes.
> Which database?
Any relational database.
> The database compiler vendors
> will suddenly have to provide with their compiler to satisfy the
> standard requirements? Probably not... Compiler vendors won't start
> writing databases (except Microsoft, of course :-) ). This means
> that this standard interface would be directed to database vendors
> rather than compiler vendors. Is this the plan? That database
> vendors will start supplying C++ header files and lib files with a
> "C++ Compliant" stamp?
You raise a good point. Virtually all database vendors supply an ODBC
interface -- so I would expect that this would be the primary basic 'driver
interface' supplied by companies building standard libraries. However, I
would expect the architecture to allow for database or standard library
vendors to provide high performance native bindings for particular databases.
Jeff