[std.database]

[Roald Ribe]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 20:31:35 -0300, Sean Kelly <sean at invisibleduck.org>  
wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/11 5:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2011 5:28 AM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
>>>> 1. I think that we should not design this API using the least common
>>>> denominator
>>>> approach. This is to not limit some databases. For example PostgreSQL
>>>> has many
>>>> great features not available in MySQL. That's why I started with
>>>> postgres in my
>>>> ddb project. I think DB API should be designed to support the most
>>>> featureful
>>>> databases and those that have less features may be easily adapted to
>>>> that API.
>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't common denominator designs been more or less failures in at
>>> least one category - gui libraries?
>>
>> A common database interface is not a common denominator API; more like  
>> the opposite. This is not difficult because most differences across  
>> database systems lie in their SQL, which is strings from D's  
>> perspective.
>
> Assuming that by "database" you mean SQL.  Pretty fair assumption,  
> though NoSQL databases (which cover a broad range of designs since  
> there's no standard language yet for key-value DBs, etc) are rapidly  
> gaining popularity.  I almost wonder if the base type should be named  
> SqlDatabase instead of Database.

There is a standard language defined for NoSQL, namely UnQL:
http://wwww.unqlspec.org/display/UnQL/Home

Roald