15 messages in com.mysql.lists.plusplusDon't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem wit...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Denis Rampnoux | 25 Apr 2002 08:25 | |
| Sinisa Milivojevic | 25 Apr 2002 08:34 | |
| Denis Rampnoux | 25 Apr 2002 11:20 | |
| Sinisa Milivojevic | 26 Apr 2002 05:10 | |
| Denis Rampnoux | 26 Apr 2002 15:12 | |
| Andreas Krueger | 28 Apr 2002 14:48 | |
| Rémy Baudet | 29 Apr 2002 00:22 | |
| Mathieu DESPRIEE | 29 Apr 2002 01:19 | |
| Mathieu DESPRIEE | 29 Apr 2002 01:40 | |
| The Lazy Fox | 29 Apr 2002 02:38 | |
| Keith MacDonald | 29 Apr 2002 03:49 | |
| lan...@seacoms.com | 29 Apr 2002 06:57 | |
| Rémy Baudet | 29 Apr 2002 08:02 | |
| Gelu | 29 Apr 2002 08:28 | |
| The Lazy Fox | 29 Apr 2002 12:17 |
| Subject: | Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)![]() |
|---|---|
| From: | Andreas Krueger (lis...@AndreasKrueger.de) |
| Date: | 04/28/2002 02:48:16 PM |
| List: | com.mysql.lists.plusplus |
Hi all!
To explain that before: I only want to be helpful to Dennis, not unfriendly or anything.
I very much appreciate that mySQL is free, so at the end of the day we all who use it can't complain if it is not (or badly) supported by a commercial company which is primarily interested in earning money which I can't give.
I like (almost admire) MySQL, it works well! An important brick in the wall of free software!
BUT my criticism might help you to decide: Go for a different solution than the MySQL++ API !!!
Why?
a) MySQL++ is not supported very well!
-------------------------------------- -> Just compare the questions on this list to the answers (quantitatively and qualitatively) -> Most of my own question were not answered adequately - or the answer was just: "It is buggy on windows" -> Only few people seem to use it (?), there are only very few people answering on this list. -> not even the question "When might there be a new version of MySQL++ released?" was answered. Should be easy.
b) Others say: "use the C API"
------------------------------ -> As an answer to my questions here, I got sent 2 different large working C-API-to-C++-wrapper-packages that were programmed by people who are disappointed by MySQL++ and have written their own API classes on the basis of the C API. Not openly on this list, but they send me the code directly and suggested that. So I think I rather speak out loud now.
c) It doesn't seem to be sufficiently stable and tested
------------------------------------------------------- -> Installing it and getting it running seems to be VERY difficult (not only but also on Windows): my experiences, yours and those of many others. -> It works only with a small set of compilers - why? OK, it takes some time to learn plattform-independent C++, but up to now, I got ALL of my projects compiled on VisualC++, GCC and HP-Unix C++! More than 10000 lines of code. -> e.g.: (At least on Windows) the SSQLS are said (by lazyfox who did the porting to VC++ 6) to be buggy or not-functioning. But that is not mentioned anywhere in the manual!
d) Save yourself the experience (?)
----------------------------------- I did a lot of testing and trying while I was learning MySQL++ (e.g. I did something I rarely do: I read the whole MySQL++ manual(!) :-) I programmed small routines to read and write data and so on. I spent a lot of time on it - but I just don't trust it now.
So what I do now in my own project - and what I recommend to you, Dennis, is using the C API.
It works well, up to now I only got one strange behaviour (access violation of the DLL) but I could solve it somehow.
I myself would rather like to use C++. Object-orientation, all the template stuff and the SSQLS would be handy and useful - and some programming time and tedious stupid coding work.
But before I spend ages with the MySQL++ API on strange behaviour, compiler problems and much more, I will rather go for something that seems to work well as is tested and optimized in many projects.
It is a pity!
my2cents, Andreas
P.S.: My own motivation to write such a long letter? I am currently coding with the C API, and it REALLY is tedious and hard and un-funny, so somehow I still long for a functioning C++ API.
Perhaps one day, the company might put some money into the C++ API again?




