List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Mathieu DESPRIEE Date:April 29 2002 8:19am
Subject:Re: RE : Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)
View as plain text  
I agree with you too.
I found a good alternative :
OTL Library over ODBC.

OTL is a full stl-like c++ library.
unixODBC/MyODBC gives you the independance between your code and your
database implementation.

ODBC stuff is pretty easy to install and configure. OTL works very well,
and is stable.




Rémy Baudet wrote:
> 
> I totally agree with you, when I was looking for a C++ API to access to
> MySQL, I was happy to find MySQL++, but after some months using it and
> trying solving compiler problems and so on, I'm now really disappointed.
> This library should even not be at the disposal of the users, it's not
> worth it spending time on it.
> That's my own opinion, as Andreas says it's a pity...
> 
> Rémy
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Andreas Krueger [mailto:lists@stripped]
> Envoyé : dimanche 28 avril 2002 23:49
> À : plusplus@stripped; Denis Rampnoux
> Cc : monty@stripped; sinisa@stripped
> Objet : 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?
Thread
Problem with mysql++ patchDenis Rampnoux25 Apr
  • Re: Problem with mysql++ patchSinisa Milivojevic25 Apr
  • Re: Problem with mysql++ patchDenis Rampnoux25 Apr
    • Re: Problem with mysql++ patchSinisa Milivojevic26 Apr
  • Re: Problem with mysql++ patchDenis Rampnoux26 Apr
    • Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)Andreas Krueger28 Apr
      • RE : Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)Rémy Baudet29 Apr
        • Re: RE : Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)Mathieu DESPRIEE29 Apr
        • Re: RE : Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)Mathieu DESPRIEE29 Apr
      • Re: Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)The Lazy Fox29 Apr
        • Re: Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)lance29 Apr
          • RE : Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)Rémy Baudet29 Apr
            • Re: RE : Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)The Lazy Fox29 Apr
        • Re: Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)Gelu29 Apr
      • RE: Don't use MySQL++ ! (was: Problem with mysql++ patch)Keith MacDonald29 Apr