3 ms·
I've never understood the appeal of this sort of thing. The idea is create a common interface to a bunch of different databases. But you still have to write or
by cwp 7y ago
I've never understood the appeal of this sort of thing. The idea is create a common interface to a bunch of different databases. But you still have to write or generate SQL that is specific to whatever database you're actually using. Outside of a very narrow range of apps (eg SQL-IDE kinds of tools), you're going to be both coupled to a specific database and limited by lowest-common-denominator design constraints in the interface library. Ugh.
- pjmlp 7y agoHaving to fine tune SQL, or change store procedure syntax call, is a tiny change, compared to rewriting from scratch the complete database binding code. Plus for many kind of applications, the ANSI SQL coverage across RDMS is quite ok.
- lenkite 7y agoWe have the same product that runs against 4 different DB's with 99% SQL being identical. Sure you sometimes need to hunt on whether a standard SQL feature is supported, but they mostly are. And even if the query dialect for the feature is a bit different, the DB access code remains the same.