[Mono-list] .NET version 1.1 and 2.0

[Jaroslaw Kowalski]

Hi!

Sorry, but (despite their ugly names) aren't OleDb.... classes just the
abstraction we want?
If you want abstraction - stick to OleDb. If you want to go for MSSQL - use
Sql* classes, if you want oracle, use Ora*whatever*... Sounds fair to me.

Besides, there are some interfaces: IDBConnection, IDBCommand, IDataReader,
IDataRecord, ....
If you want some reusability, even when using Sql* classes, I think you can
use the interfaces instead of classes (this is just a thought, haven't tried
it). Or is there something wrong with the interfaces?

Jarek

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodrigo Moya" <rodrigo@ximian.com>
To: "Guenther Roith" <groith@tcrz.net>
Cc: "Mono List" <mono-list@ximian.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] .NET version 1.1 and 2.0


> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 20:02, Guenther Roith wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rodrigo Moya" <rodrigo@ximian.com>
> > To: "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel@ximian.com>
> > Cc: "Marsh, Drew" <dmarsh@mimeo.com>; "Mono List" <mono-list@ximian.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 7:14 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .NET version 1.1 and 2.0
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 22:18, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > > > * ADO.NET: The database guys should chime in with their
> > > >   comments, I am not a DB person, and I am passing along what
> > > >   people who have built these systems before told me.
> > > >
> > > the biggest problem in ADO.NET I see myself is the impossibility of
using
> > it as
> > > a generic database access layer. That is, to create a connection, you
have
> > to
> > > know in advance the DB server/API you are going to use, which is ok
for
> > some
> > > cases but not for generic database access.
> > >
> > > What I miss is something along the way the driver manager in JDBC,
which
> > allows
> > > to activate a driver via an identifier:
> > >
> >
> > I've not looked at it, but does this
http://abstractadonet.sourceforge.net/
> > help?
> >
> it might yes, although I haven't looked at it myself too much. It would
> be a good idea to come up with some classes for doing the abstraction,
> and then, once they're good enough, try to put them on the standard, or,
> if that's not possible, have them in the Mono.* namespace.
>
> Once I get my DSL line back again, I'll look at this.
>
> cheers
> --
> Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo@ximian.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>