From: Date: April 29 2002 12:49pm Subject: RE: Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch) List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus/1072 Message-Id: <000301c1ef6b$9e35f540$0100a8c0@dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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? > >