Hi Marcel,<div><br></div><div>I suppose the reason for using C wrappers is coming from the compatibility with the native language in which that particular SQL application is developed.</div><div><br></div><div>I do agree that a solution based on TCP server would be at least more readable and maybe more suitable for clustering SQL servers. Nevertheless, that's the choice of developers. Speaking for myself only, I would go with your option because I see no downfall to that and it would provide a less dependable interface.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This is my 2c opinion. If someone has a better explanation/suggestion, please, by all means, correct me.</div><div><br></div><div>CGS</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Marcel Meyer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marcel.meyer@gmail.com" target="_blank">marcel.meyer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi David,<div>No replies yet. I was wanted to see how other db wire protocols were implemented, and saw that 'dizzyd' did the mysql driver natively. I spoke to a colleague of mine and we wondered if there might be performance issues with bit syntax and that the ODBC app wanted to go straight to the metal. </div>
<div>The reason I was asking this is that we're talking about how you would build a proxy to a cluster of Sql Servers (not a Sql Server Cluster).</div><div>Jan Kneschke of lighttpd fame is working on a MySql proxy, with failover/load balancing properties. Could be interesting for Sql Server...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>M</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:07 PM, David Mercer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmercer@gmail.com" target="_blank">dmercer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Just checking to see if anyone replied to you on this and did not reply-all the list. I would be interested in hearing the answer, too, if one is available.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Cheers,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">DBM<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:erlang-questions-bounces@erlang.org" target="_blank">erlang-questions-bounces@erlang.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:erlang-questions-bounces@erlang.org" target="_blank">erlang-questions-bounces@erlang.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcel Meyer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 03, 2012 4:39 PM<br><b>To:</b> erlang-questions<br><b>Subject:</b> [erlang-questions] Erlang and the TDS protocol<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear list,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">I am curious why there isn't a native Erlang TDS protocol implementation. Even /otp/lib wraps a C ODBC implementation using a port.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Would this not be simpler and more concise using bit syntax, since the TCP datagram unpacks in 1 line of code (more for readability, of course)?<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
It just seems like extra work: C wraps the msg, port wraps C, ODBC app wraps port etc. There is a lot of 'wrapping' going on.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
Any input would be much appreciated.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Marcel<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
erlang-questions mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>
<a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" target="_blank">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>