Christian Reichenbach wrote:
>You've a very radical position.
Not really; I don't find it at all radical to think in terms of
'reasonability'. The poster in question believes that adding a feature
to make square brackets work like quotation marks would make the code
base harder to maintain and be basically unnecessary in most cases. I
think he's right, especially considering how easy this is to change on
the user-software side.
>We've thousands lines of code and hundreds of users. I can gurantee
>that some users insist on a MS solution.
That is quite possible; may I suggest ODBC?
>Not all, but some. If we break MS support
Will it break MS support to use quotation marks instead of square brackets?
>it's harder to get new. I think, if we can offer both, there's a high
>probability, that many customers will turn to mySQL because of the costs.
Since you're making a decision on the basis of profitability, then take
some of those estimated profits and put them into programming the patch
yourself; that's how open-source software works.
>MySQL s a great thing but I cant't recommend it, if we loose MS
No; you can't recommend your own software, which has broken SQL support.
Try explaining to your customer why they can't use Oracle or DB2 while
you're at it. The database world is a _lot_ bigger than MS SQL Server.
>We're already using classes for SQL translating, but only for
>reporting and other third party tools. It's hell!
Hmm; get more / better programmers? I hate to be crass / direct, but
I'm having no problems and we maintain a _lot_ of database code.
>I think a runtime option for MySQL (not compiler option) would be
>adequate. Perl won't do it.
You could probably write yourself a PERL program to listen via tcpserver
<http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html> and translate the queries for you in
about an hour. Or you could go through the MySQL code and try to write
the patch yourself; you do have the source, don't you?
>It must be a great pleasure to convince MS useres.
If I convince a MS user to move away from a MS solution, its because MS
gave the wrong solution or did it incorrectly / inappropriately. In
that case, I can usually point out that any changes required by the new
solution are related to the new solution being better.
>The end user pays. So you must get more developers! And it's much more
>easy to say you've an alternative.
Considering MS SQL Server has other features like triggers and stored
procs that are much more important to many more people than square
bracket quoting, I can't imagine your argument going very far ...
>In the end, only 5% of our customers would accept pure Linux solutions,
>because other needed software is only available for Windows.
This is a good reason to invest some $$$ in Wine, which already runs a
large number of Windows programs very well.
Michael T. Babcock
C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd.