[DB-SIG] Common Database Module Implementation?

[M.-A. Lemburg]

Paul Boddie wrote:
> 
> It occurred to me that, given the stated deficiencies of certain database
> modules, and the non-uniformity of support that the modules provide for certain
> DB-API features, to ask whether any thought has been made on a common, basic
> module implementation which might be customised for each vendor's database. I
> know that ODBC support is available, but for those of us who value the "native"
> modules, I wondered whether customised versions of a reference implementation
> might provide wider, better support of most DB-API features across most database
> platforms.
> 
> Unfortunately I only have basic knowledge of Oracle Call Interface, and no
> knowledge about how other database systems may be called in a similar way, but
> might it be the case that there are several common parts to each database module
> implementation, such as the data structures required to hold retrieved row
> information, and the data structures required to represent certain database
> types? Has anyone tried to modify one database module to work with another
> database system?

I don't think that the native APIs have much in common and seen
from the cross-database portability ODBC is pretty hard to beat, IMHO.
But, I'm biased :-)

What one might try is implementing a different technique of
accessing databases altogether: a class based view of things,
where tables become objects and queries are built from sets
of select-objects, join-objects, etc. These would enable a
much cleaner (though less rich) interface to all sorts of
databases - even non-SQL ones.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg                       
......................................................................
            |  Python Pages:  http://starship.skyport.net/~lemburg/  |
             --------------------------------------------------------