hans at eds.org
Mon Feb 6 19:10:35 CET 2006
(let's keep this on the list since its probably of general interest).
If the object that you are currently working on is for PostgreSQL, then
I think you should keep the name [psql]. Then when you right a generic
SQL object, call that [sql]. It could be handy to have both, for
example, to access PostgreSQL-specific features.
On Feb 6, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Jamie Bullock wrote:
> It's certainly possible; probably the best way would be to use the
> dbconnect API. This would require a complete re-write however. I'm
> very willing to do do this - but not until I've got a few other things
> out of the way. It would probably make sense to change the name to
> [sql] now for future-proofing - do you agree?
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:56:06 -0500
> Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at eds.org> wrote:
>> This would be great! Is a [sql] object possible that would access any
>> SQL database? That would be even better.
>> On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Jamie Bullock wrote:
>>> I have made an alternative version of [sqlsingle] (an object by Iain
>>> Mott for querying Postgres databases), which holds the connection to
>>> the database open by default and closes it on demand, rather than
>>> closing (and vacuuming) the database after every query. I intend to
>>> call the new object [psql], and maintain/develop it. Before
>>> to CVS, does anyone ahave any objections to this?
>>> I just ask in case Iain is still maintaining [sqlsingle], or someone
>>> has already done a similar thing.
>>> PD-dev mailing list
>>> PD-dev at iem.at
>> "The arc of history bends towards justice."
>> - Dr. Martin Luther King,
More information about the Pd-dev