camber at umcc.ais.org
Tue Dec 14 18:40:53 EST 1999
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Michael Peppler wrote:
> Adrian Blakey writes:
> > Firstly, FreeTDS is a godsend -- thank you.
> > I am testing TDS .5 on RH Linux against a MS SS Ver 7.0.
> > I got and tried to make DBD::FreeTDS 0.02, but it does not seem to be
> > maintained judging from the compile errors.
> You are correct. I actually think that it should be removed from
> > So I have been testing with DBD::Sybase, built using the FreeTDS libs.
> > Things mostly work, however error handling and reporting is not up to the
> > same level as if DBD::Sybase were linked with the Sybase libs.
> I'd love to get some specifics on this.
me too. All the server errors should be propagating up to DBD::Sybase.
> > So I wonder if there would be any point in forking the DBD::Sybase codeline
> > and doing a better job of providing a DBD::FreeTDS?
> I'm not convinced that DBD::Sybase can't be made to behave correctly
> with both implementations, but I'm open to suggestions. In any case
> the DBD::Sybase code isn't all that complicated :-)
I'm not aware of any problems with supporting both either. TDS 7 has some
additional datatypes, but they shouldn't conflict with existing types. It
may require a couple of ifdef's or some clever header file hacks :-) but
it is certainly doable.
> > This makes me wonder about about impedance matches between the libs,
> > protocol and server.
> > Sybase considers ctLib its annointed interface to TDS 5.0 and Adaptive
> > Server Enterprise. And they probably do not want to help out MS by extending
> > ctLib.
> > Microsoft has no ctLib implementation and is interested in furthering dbLib
> > as the interface to TDS 7.0 and Sql Server.
> Doesn't Microsoft push ODBC over DBlibrary?
This is my understanding. Once things settle out with TDS 7, I'll
probably attack the ODBC CLI. TDS 7 isn't that fundamentally different
than 4.2 or 5.0, just more datatypes and unicode support. Unicode is the
interesting problem, but solvable I think.
> > FreeTDS exports TDS 7.0 functionality through the reimplemented FreeTDS
> > ctLib -- there is no dblib (rightly so). Therefore, are there ctLib
> > functions which either behave differently or not at all when directed at a
> > MS database? So will it be necessary to implement some ctLib functions that
> > are not part of the Sybase "standard" library to support MS?
> I guess Brian and/or others who are using the TDS 7 stuff will have to
> step in here...
TDS 7 is exported through both ctlib and dblib in FreeTDS. DBLib has
actually gotten more testing with this stuff. There is also a
configure-time switch to implement MSSQL behaviour in preference to Sybase
where they differ (dbdatecrack() is my single example of this currently)
More information about the FreeTDS