Re: gnome-db wrote:

> Ok. All questions are answered. You seem to assume that iodbc can
> not access anything but databases.

No, I don't assume this, I was just explaining to you what gnome-db is.

> It is faster just to use iodbc if you dont need the widgets and
> does not require the gnome libs. I see comertial database developers
> producing drivers for iodbc because they do not have to change a single
> line of code to get it to run with iodbc. But, I do not see them makeing
> gnome-db drivers for a long time. My suggestion to get things working as
> smoothly as posible would be to recode the gnome-db api to be a simple
> wrapper to iodbc that makes iodbc eaier to use, and take your corba
> servers and make a iodbc corba driver. That way, you would have everything
> you have now, but without the preformance hit, and it would not duplicate
> any work.

As its name implies, gnome-db is for GNOME, so we want to use the same standards/tools
that gnome uses. Using CORBA, we'll be able to provide access to the whole suite from any
other GNOME app, and we'll provide bonobo components to be inserted in container apps,
such as MS Word. So, a recode as you said is not on our minds, but if you want to help us
improving gnome-db, we'll be pleased.

> Plus, it would be using a standard rather then createing a new
> one. While I dont have much time to work on doing that, I would find the
> time to help if you wish to do that.

CORBA is a standard, and heavily adopted by GNOME. And since GNOME is gaining acceptance
everywhere, maybe in a future gnome-db would be the standard for GNOME database apps.

> As to my programs, there is less benifits using gnome-db over iodbc. so, I
> will use iodbc.

You may be right here, maybe gnome-db is only useful for GNOME apps, since they can
benefit for all of its features (which are not only graphical widgets, although this is
one of the most important).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]