Re: [Chicken-users] DBI

[Vincent Manis]

On 2008 Feb 29, at 23:13, Alex Shinn wrote:
> However, different backends represent
> this (and various other extensions we'll eventually want) in
> different ways.  SQL could just generate a standard syntax
> that all the backends would have to support, but then they'd
> be reparsing the SQL string we just generated and then
> putting it back together in their own way.  It makes more
> sense to integrate the SQL generation with the backends from
> the start.

This all sounds uncomfortably like ODBC to me. I would not
use a module like that, but would use a DBI-like module,
for the reasons we discussed a couple of days ago: prototyping,
relatively quick-and-dirty applications, and teaching.

A caution against overengineering isn't out of place here.
What is the problem this high-level API is trying to solve?

-- vincent