[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dbi-dev
Subject:    RE: ANNOUNCE: DBD::Sybase 0.03
From:       Jeff Urlwin <jurlwin () access ! digex ! net>
Date:       1997-09-29 20:34:02
[Download RAW message or body]

    *** From dbi-dev -- To unsubscribe, see the end of this message. ***

On Monday, September 29, 1997 8:11 PM, Michael Peppler [SMTP:mpeppler@mbay.net] 
wrote:
> Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 29, 1997 7:04 PM, Michael Peppler
> > [SMTP:mpeppler@mbay.net]
> > wrote:
> > > Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, September 29, 1997 10:17 AM, Michael Peppler
> > > > [SMTP:mpeppler@mbay.net] wrote:
> > > > >     *** From dbi-users -- To unsubscribe, see the end of this 
message.
> > > > >
> > > > >     ***
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just uploaded DBD::Sybase 0.03 to CPAN.
> > > > >
> > > > > This version is NOT built on top of Sybase::CTlib but instead uses
> > > > > the Sybase OpenClient Client Library API at the C level.
> > > >
> > > > Was there a "great" reason for this (using the OpenClient Library)?
> > > >
> > > > I had *hoped* to try DBD::Sybase directly to/from MS SQL Server...I
> > > > think
> > > > the
> > > > only library supported between the two was the C library (not
> > OpenClient...)
> > > >
> > >
> > > No both DBlibrary and ClientLibrary can "talk" to MS-SQL server. They
> > > are both implementations of the same basic TDS protocol.
> >
> > According to my MS-Press SQL Server book, MS and Sybase agree to keep "C"
> > library compatible.  I'm not sure (yet), but I think MS only distributes a
> > version of CTLib...
>
> I suspect it's the opposite - MS only distributes DBlibrary (which is
> the old, pre-system 10 API).

Yes, you are correct.  I found the reference (page 57 of SQL Server 6.5 Admin, 
Wrox Press, Dooley, Sharon, et. al.)
"DBLibrary is the lowest level of interface; it's also the level at which 
SYBASE and Microsoft have agreed to maintain compatibility."

>
> >
> > >
> > > The reason for using ClientLibrary is that that is what Sybase is
> > > enhancing now, and that is the only library that is available on
> > > Linux.
> >
> > Well, that makes sense <G>.
> >
> > >
> > > Some systems don't have the ClientLibrary, such as the NeXT systems,
> > > and older installations with only Sybase 4.x (vs 10.x or 11.x)
> > > libraries.
> > >
> > > It *may* be fairly easy to write a variant of DBD::Sybase that uses
> > > DBlibrary instead...
> > >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > Well, given that MS has a better-than-average ODBC driver for SQL Server,
> > that
> > may be the best way.
>
> Yes. But I may do the DBlibrary version anyway, depending on what
> returns I hear on this one. I'm pretty sure that doing the second
> driver will be fairly easy now that I've (pretty much) understood
> how DBI is supposed to work.

Well, that would be good, but as I said, Win32 users can use the ODBC library 
-- and I've found that this driver is better implemented than most other ODBC 
drivers.

However, should you get to it, and you want a tester/win32 "port", I'd be 
willing to give it a hack.

Jeff



-----
jurlwin@access.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~jurlwin




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit http://www.fugue.com/dbi.
If you are without web access, or if you are having trouble with the web page,
please send mail to dbi-request@fugue.com.   Please try to use the web
page first - it will take a long time for your request to be processed by hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]