From: Daniel Pfeifer (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-22 10:37:04
Hi Jeff,
> [...] the leading candidate [...] is soci.
I know about that. SOCI surely is a great library with high
potential. However, there are two things, that I disagree with it:
1) overloads of operator<< and operator,
It confuses me to use operator<< to get information _out_ of
something.
2) Runtime polymorphy
I agree that is is important to switch easily between
implementations, but usually you don't need this flexibility at
runtime, do you?
I don't want to start a discussion about soci here. I just want to
point out why I would prefer a different approach.
> 3 months is a short time. I'd suggest you pick a smaller number of
> backends if you're going to propose this. The design should support
> expansion to the others, but my sense is that 5 backends in 3 months
> isn't doable.
Agreed. It is good to know what is doable in a fixed timeframe and
what is not. Now I'm spoilt for choice...
Thanks for your reply!
Daniel