FreeTDS Development Group

["Lowden, James K" <LowdenJK AT bernstein.com>]

> From: Robert Klemme
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:08 PM
> 
> How true.  That reminds me that I always wanted to ask about freetds
> version number policy.  When can we expect to see 1.0 (or even
> higher)?  On one hand I have the feeling that 0.63 is pretty much
> stable (at least the bulk loader which is the only one we extensively
> tested so far) on the other hand 0.63 seems to indicate quite a
> gap to 1.0 which irritates me a bit...

Well, we haven't defined what 1.0 would be.  It's been awhile since I
thought about it, too.  

I suggested a few years ago -- about when api_status.txt first appeared
-- that we could measure our progress as a percentage of completed
functions.  That's a little simplistic because: 

1.  Some functions are very complex, particularly in ODBC and ct-lib.  

2.  Some functions will never be implemented.  

Examples: db-lib has "browse" functions that are museum pieces today.
There are svr functions that exploit server-side operations that no one
much uses.  Some of the placeholder functionality requires parsing the
SQL to work with Microsoft servers.  

There are other things.  bcp works well when it works, but when there
are problems with the data, it can take a TDSDUMP log to diagnose them.
Similarly, when the libraries are used correctly, they work, but when
the programmer makes mistakes, the library frequently passes the mistake
to a lower level, which fails in mysterious ways.  We almost need an
"antitest" module to drive that side.  

Finally, documentation.  IMHO there should be a complete, accurate
reference manual documenting our implementation.  Bugs are behavior in
exception to that documented.  No document means all behavior is
undefined, bugwise.  We can't say we have N bugs absent documentation.  

Do I think this is achievable?  No.  There are 100 guys willing to work
on Firefox extensions for every one interested in "finishing" FreeTDS.
Does that mean, then, that my standards are too high.  Not as I see it,
but maybe.  Convince me.  

Regards, 

--jkl



-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and
confidential and is intended only for the use of the person(s) named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent 
responsible
for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, 
dissemination,
distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If 
you are
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately by reply 
e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message. Please note that we do not 
accept
account orders and/or instructions by e-mail, and therefore will not be 
responsible
for carrying out such orders and/or instructions.  If you, as the intended 
recipient
of this message, the purpose of which is to inform and update our clients, 
prospects
and consultants of developments relating to our services and products, would 
not
like to receive further e-mail correspondence from the sender, please "reply" 
to the
sender indicating your wishes.  In the U.S.: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New 
York,
NY 10105.