On Sunday 20 May 2001 01:58 pm, you wrote:
> patrick wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 May 2001 12:09 pm, you wrote:
> > > Sounds like ODBC to me.
> >
> > whats that
>
> Remember you asked!
>
> from the Webopedia site: http://www.pcwebopedia.com/TERM/O/ODBC.html
>
> "Abbreviation of Open DataBase Connectivity, a standard database access
> method developed by Microsoft Corporation. The goal of ODBC is to make
> it possible to access any data from any application, regardless of which
> database management system (DBMS) is handling the data. ODBC manages
> this by inserting a middle layer, called a database driver,
> between an application and the DBMS. The purpose of this layer is
> to translate the application's data queries into commands that the
> DBMS understands. For this to work, both the application and the DBMS
> must be ODBC-compliant -- that is, the application must be capable of
> issuing ODBC commands and the DBMS must be capable of responding to
> them. Since version 2.0, the standard supports SAG SQL. "
ok, but if they are in effect not creating a new database but a connection
for all the databases that can combine with KDE. isnt that a good
thing. if all the data bases can be run through KDE isnt kde the
main desktop for linux home users. shouldnt this bring some power
to the desktop.
>
> Here's a link to FreeODBC:
> http://www.jepstone.net/FreeODBC/index.html
>
> and one to IODBC:
> http://www.iodbc.org/index.htm
>
> Even the free DBMS systems now all have ODBC drivers.
>
> Unless there's something on the reKall site I'm missing then it appears
> to be re-inventing the wheel. The reality is that ODBC never really
> caught on for web apps except maybe in windowsland. The extra layer is
> a performance hit and for a long time the proprietary drivers were a
> financial hit. In a windows system what's one more hit or two among so
> many?
>
> The mention of the antiquated dBase(tm) format (now generally referred
> to as xBase) for the reKall default and the idea of deploying a personal
> system built by someone with no RDBMS experience to 10,000 users gives
> me the impression that the creators of reKall don't have much experience
> themselves with large DBMS systems or the unique problems of database
> driven multi-user applications.
>
> On the other hand... the ODBC api isn't onerous but it's not easy to
> use. That's why MS is forever creating another sort of incompatible COM
> wrapper around it and calling it yet another new acronym. Maybe the
> reKall creators want to re-do the ODBC idea in a simpler more
> mortal-usable fashion. They're off to a bad start with an xBase style
> format.
>
> There's already a more commonly used standard in place that has more
> support: Perl DBD/DBI
> http://dbi.symbolstone.org/index.html.
>
> They would do well to create a DBI layer for other languages that can
> use all the existing DBD Modules.
>
> Ed.
>
> > > Ed.
> > >
> > > patrick wrote:
> > > > check this out. the database of databases.
> > > >
> > > > yes or no ?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thekompany.com/projects/rekall/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:12:55 EDT