[GSOC] Database API draft proposal

[Christian Manning]

On 03/04/2011 14:42, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
> Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
>> Well the comments in there are what is important, and will need to be
>> specified better IMHO.
>>
>> The most important part in my opinion is how one chooses to represent a
>> record.
>> A big design choice is if the various fields are defined at compile time
>> or at runtime.
>> Also how does one add special behavior to a record? Do you use a
>> subclasses of the generic record type (as ruby does for example)?
>
> I'm working on DB API for few months in my spare time. I'm delayed that
> much by my other projects. Please take a look at my ideas:
>
> http://github.com/pszturmaj/ddb
>
> Documentation:
> http://pszturmaj.github.com/ddb/db.html
> http://pszturmaj.github.com/ddb/postgres.html
>
> In my code, row is represented using struct DBRow!(Specs...). Fields may
> be known at compile time or not. DBRow besides base types, may be
> instantiated using structs, tuples or arrays. Untyped row (no compile
> time information) is DBRow!(Variant[]).
>
> Typed rows are very useful, for example you don't need to manually cast
> columns to your types, it's done automatically, e.g.:
>
> auto cmd = new PGCommand(conn, "SELECT typname, typlen FROM pg_type");
> auto result = cmd.executeQuery!(string, "typName", int, "len");
>
> foreach (row; result)
> {
> // here, row DBRow subtypes
> // a Tuple!(string, "typName", int, "len")
> writeln(row.typName, ", ", row.len);
> }
>
> What do you think? :)

I was going to reply with a link to your work but you beat me to it.
I think it's a great design and incorporating it or something similar 
into the API may be the way to go.