In article <20011112085711.A440 / michael.neumann.all>, "Michael Neumann"
<neumann / s-direktnet.de> wrote:

> Sean Russell wrote:
>> Michael Neumann wrote:
>> 
>> > BTW, I don't think SQLRelay is a replacement for DBI.
>> 
>> Why not?  Superficially, they appear to do the same thing.  I don't
>> know if SQLRelay is *superior* to DBI, but it looks like an
>> alternative.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Sure they do the same, but differently. It may be an alternative, of
> course, but for me it's not.
> 
> I think Python and Perl guys use their Python DB API 2.0 or Perl's DBI
> as well together with SQLRelay and not the API coming with SQLRelay.
> 
> Some reasons for me:
>   * doesn't work for Windows
>   * it doesn't run on my system ;-)
>   * you have to do some additional work to setup connections,
>     e.g. start several daemons (listener, cache manager...)
>   * API is less comfortable, not designed with Ruby in mind * error
>   handling like in C (no exceptions) * currently misses AutoCommit,
>   metadata informations as found in
>     DBI and some other useful methods.

I agree with you here.
Ruby/DBI is definitely more like "the ruby way"
we use sql-relay at work (the c++ version)
it it is not always fun. it seems to be a bit buggy
and it is more difficult to set up and as you said, you have to start
several deamons.

the missing windows port is also a problem. I personally do not use
Windows but there are many ruby fans out there who like to (or have to)
use windows.

I am glad that there is Ruby/DBI and I use it for all my db
programming.


markus



>   
>   
> Regards,
> 
>   Michael
>