(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.
.hc
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?
Jamie
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:56:06 -0500 Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@eds.org wrote:
This would be great! Is a [sql] object possible that would access any SQL database? That would be even better.
.hc
On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Jamie Bullock wrote:
Hi,
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 committing 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.
Jamie
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
__ ____
"The arc of history bends towards justice." - Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr.
________________________________________________________________________ ____
-
Hans-Christoph Steiner