Ed Centanni 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
Gray propaganda here. ODBC was developed by a consortium of
manufactures, one of whom was microsoft. Ironically, ms uses the dbase
format on its platforms, which was developed by IBM with federal
government funding. ODBC is actually more versatile as it uses the
SQL. It is interesting that ms got full credit there for something it
was a minor contributor to.
Smitty
>
> "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. "
>
> 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 - 16:24:52 EDT