FreeTDS Development Group

[John Seers <John.Seers AT uk.lionbioscience.com>]

James

Thanks for replying and sorry for taking up your time.

> You should be able to connect 0.53 or a recent snapshot to SQL Server 2000
> with TDS 7.0.

I can with my small trial C program with 0.53. But it fails with the C++
program.

> IIRC, unittest #4 is currently broken.  If that's what you're seeing, you
> can ignore it.  It would be interesting to know if tsql handles the query
> that your new C++ program is choking on.

No, all the tests failed. I will leave that for now as the snapshot was
only a try to pick up what I thought would be a fix to my problem. But
from what you are saying I am probably looking in the wrong direction,
so I will go back to working on 0.53.

> Which "standard libraries" are you referring to?

I just meant that I am installing in my home directory and not
/usr/local or whatever. I do not have root access and I have to get the
systems people to do that. 


> Since your other tests successfully connect, we know your account
> credentials are OK.  Since unknown marker errors often stem from TDS version
> mismatches, though, you might want to "export TDSVER=7.0", just to be sure
> that's not the issue.

I have just tried that but no improvement.


> 
> It's probably worthwhile to install your own handler.  If you haven't done
> that before, allow some time. :)

Oh dear. I do not have the time at the moment as I have some development
deadlines to meet. (The first of which is find out how to access MS SQL
Server from a unix box!).

> 
> One convenient way to make sure you're generating a message is with a query
> like "raiserror( 'hello', 16,1 )".  sqsh won't die on that, but the default
> handler might.

OK, I need to get sqsh working as you suggested in your previous e-mail.
So today I am switching to the more up to date linux platform. I will
reinstall 0.53 and see if I can get sqsh working. 

So, is it usual to have your own handler and not use the default? In
brief what would that involve? As I am still at the stage of choosing
how we should access MS SQL Server from a unix box can you give me some
pointers on why I should/should not choose freetds? I do not have the
time at the moment to take on extra development.


> I doubt you'll see much difference in speed.  The ct-lib is more complete
> than the ODBC implementation.  Apart from that, it's mostly a question of
> religion, er, preference.

Thanks, this is helpful. I was not sure if to go for the odbc interface
or choose between ctlib and dblib. 
I have not got religion yet. :)


Regards.


John Seers
begin:vcard 
n:Seers;John
tel;cell:07900 498885
tel;fax:01223 224701
tel;home:01603 660746
tel;work:01223 224729
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:John.Seers AT uk.lionbioscience.com
fn:John Seers
end:vcard