FreeTDS Development Group

["ZIGLIO, Frediano, VF-IT" <Frediano.Ziglio AT vodafone.com>]

> 
> Hi Bill,
> Great, I'm going to ask whenever I get deadlocked.
> 
> As for what I'm trying to do, I have a database engine with 
> no network support, and I want to get some exposure for it, 
> to different technologies like odbc, oledb, jdbc and dotnet. 
> Grace to this group's efforts, to jTDS and mono, TDS seems to 
> be the most open protocol to do client/server, although it 
> was not intended to be open.
> I have complaced myself into 4.2 because the MS Network 
> Monitor parser for TDS makes it easy to discover the 
> protocol, but it fails to keep in sync when encountering wide 
> characters, as in 7.0 and 8. However I'm afraid I'll have to 
> switch to wide character, since 4.2 is losing support fast, 
> for example the jdbc driver from Microsoft doesn't talk to 
> TDS 4.2; I'm not sure about Mono.
> Regarding the programming language, I use C++ with gcc and 
> Visual, I am too afraid of memory leaks to use C, and I guess 
> a server can afford to be less portable than a client.
> 

In 2004 I don't think that C++ it's so "less portable"... gcc can
compile for a lot of platforms, even cross compiling !

> How about a higher level question - is it good to stick to a 
> binary protocol for a server, or go to xml rather?
> 

If you want odbc, oledb, etc without writing many code you have to use a
protocol which provide these drivers... Oracle, DB2, MySql, postgres or
whatever. Perhaps you can find a simpler protocol... I don't know... I
think you have to implements many store procedure and emulations to make
more stuff happy... IMO a simpler db should have a simpler protocol.

> Mike
> 

freddy77