RE: Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)

[Keith MacDonald]

Well put Andreas!  I switched to Sergei Kuchin's OTL, which is free from
here:
http://members.fortunecity.com/skuchin/home.htm
Not quite so elegant in concept, but at least it works with VC7 and gcc
4.95, and is not limited to MySQL.

Keith MacDonald

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Krueger [mailto:lists@stripped] 
> Sent: 28 April 2002 22:49
> To: plusplus@stripped; Denis Rampnoux
> Cc: monty@stripped; sinisa@stripped
> Subject: Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
>