[Haskell-cafe] Merge hsql and HDBC -- there can only be one!
joerg.rudnick at t-online.de
Wed Jul 7 05:17:03 EDT 2010
these are good questions -- actually, you might have mentioned Takusen, too.
Clearly, HDBC is the largest of these projects, and there are lots of
things well done there.
Takusen has an interesting approach, and I would like to see a
discussion here about the practical outcomes, as I have done no testing yet.
I myself quite a time ago had an opportunity to do a Haskell job with a
PostgreSQL backend for a client, where I tried out all three and got
hsql running easiest. A maintainer was vacant, so I stepped in happily
-- doing refactorings, fixing problems at request, giving advice to people.
I can say that I am quite a little PostgreSQL centric and that I have a
GIS project in sight, for which I want to try to adapt hsql.
Christopher Done wrote:
> One thing that would be nice is a unification of the general database
> libraries hsql and HDBC. What is the difference between them? Why are
> there two, and why are there sets of drivers for both (duplication of
> effort?)? I've used both in the past but I can't discern a real big
> difference (I used the hsql-sqlite library and the HDBC-postgresql
> library, whichever worked...). It seems the best thing to do is either
> actively merge them together and encourage the community to move from
> one to the other -- judging from what I've read HDBC is more up to
> date and newer than hsql -- or have some documentation with damn good
> reasons to choose one or the other, because currently this is a
> needless source of confusion and possible duplication of effort for
> Haskell's database libraries.
> I wasn't going to post until I'd actually researched the difference
> myself properly but I didn't get chance to have a look over the
> weekend, but I thought I'd pose the question. Do people actually care
> about this?
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-Cafe