Hello.

I have released the ALPHA-3 version of D-DBAPI.

Changes since ALPHA-2:

    * Implemented type aware fetch methods.
    * Implemented struct fetch methods.

The project link for more information is : http://code.google.com/p/d-dbapi/

You can point your browser, or checkout the code using SVN:

http://d-dbapi.googlecode.com/svn/tags/alpha-3

Please let me know what you think.

Regards,

Myron.

Nice work.

Hi Myron,
seems to be a quit flexible design, but in fact it is not.
Why ?
Your code is very next to SQLite, but what about the rest of the World.
And I am not only talking about MySQL or PostgreSQL etc., I am simply talking about stored data. !?

Next :
Your design expects that the developer has an concrete idea about the underlying database/data architechture. Unfortunately this is not allways the case. Often You have to deal with with an unknown, or particular unknown design. That said I mean the DAO "solution" (which you do not like) is more flexible and versatile. And even the DAO pattern can be extended ... simply by examining the Database /System Tables/

Well, also the DDBI folks have that discussion, but I am afraid that, thanks to a lot of ignorance, it will end up to an zero result event.

Furthermore it is quit frustrating to see an active record implementation in PHP,Ruby and other scripting languages ...  but nothing comparable f.i. in D. Simply means CTFE is not worth the effort.

However Your development-goal is different to mine and I think in it s playground you have done an excellent Job.

Cheers,
Bjoern

Myron Alexander schrieb:
> Hello.
> 
> I have released the ALPHA-3 version of D-DBAPI.
> 
> Changes since ALPHA-2:
> 
>     * Implemented type aware fetch methods.
>     * Implemented struct fetch methods.
> 
> The project link for more information is : http://code.google.com/p/d-dbapi/
> 
> You can point your browser, or checkout the code using SVN:
> 
> http://d-dbapi.googlecode.com/svn/tags/alpha-3
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Myron.

Mark Wrenn wrote:
> Nice work.

Thanks.

BLS wrote:
> Furthermore it is quit frustrating to see an active record implementation in PHP,Ruby and other scripting languages ...  but nothing comparable f.i. in D. Simply means CTFE is not worth the effort.
> 

I'm afraid an active record implementation is well outside my design scope.

> However Your development-goal is different to mine and I think in it s playground you have done an excellent Job.

Thanks