GDA: Status

[Phil Longstaff]

Derek Atkins wrote:
> Phil Longstaff <plongstaff at rogers.com> writes:
> 
>>> Or would it be more expedient to pick a technology that has a proven
>>> track record, proven stability, is NOT a moving target, and is
>>> already available in most distributions?
>> One problem with libdbi is that its scope doesn't cover everything that
>> libgda's does.  From what I can tell, libdbi doesn't have any apis to
>> cover table/index creation, and that is one area that has a lot of
>> individuality (e.g. autoinc integer fields).
> 
> Is that the only individuality?  Or are there others as well?
> Could we abstract those pieces out ourselves?
> How do other projects using those technologies handle that?

I took a look at a few projects using libdbi.  They seem to have some
external mechanism (script) to create the db, and they also seem to have
more of a permanent database idea (e.g. a reference database, a library
contents database).

Well, as long as queries and data modification stick to standard sql, gc
could be ok.  Note that there are some things which, whether standard
sql or not, I would like to use if available e.g. the ability to insert
multiple rows at a time (for slots) which is not supported by sqlite.

We could abstract out the pieces.  What I have written could be adapted.
 It's simply a question of risk.  I'm not so tied to libgda that I
couldn't switch, even now.

Phil