www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Firebird and D without ODBC?

reply "MARK DELANO" <invalid invalid.net> writes:
Greetings,

    I'm interested in using some new technology these days and one of the 
great things I've found is D.  I'm very happy with the little I've used it. 
However, I was hoping to use D in sort of a CGI like way as needed with a 
webserver.  In the spirit of finding better technology, I'm hoping to switch 
from Access to Firebird.  After a bit of searching, I have managed to get my 
webserver, D, and Firebird all happily talking via ODBC.  However, I have 
just a small bit of concern about performance after doing a few tests.  Not 
that I necessarily need the performance, but that I want to do things in a 
cool and efficient way.

    I'm pretty sure the "problem" is that I'm opening a new ODBC connection 
each time the D .exe is run.  Unfortunately, I'm already used to how fast D 
is and the thought of writing fast D cgi type stuff only to have it slowed 
down by ODBC is annoying.  Now, I could use my webserver's internal database 
scripting language or D as necessary (the webserver keeps connections open 
it seems, instead of the D .exe which of course has no idea that it is being 
run a lot and using the same connection) but I hate when I have to choose 
between functionality and performance! ;)

    Is it unreasonable for me to use D, Firebird, and -ODBC- to connect them 
together ...?  I confess I'm not a database expert, and I was wondering if 
perhaps anyone had a more direct way of tying D and Firebird together or if 
I should get over it and stick with what works!  All insights appreciated... 
=)

Mark 
Jul 07 2005
next sibling parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
I don't know what "Firebird" is, but have you done a google search for  
"fast cgi". I believe it's a variant of CGI where the CGI binary continues  
to run in between requests. It requires web server support (of course).  
I've never written one myself.

Regan

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 01:55:19 -0700, MARK DELANO <invalid invalid.net> wrote:
 Greetings,

     I'm interested in using some new technology these days and one of the
 great things I've found is D.  I'm very happy with the little I've used  
 it.
 However, I was hoping to use D in sort of a CGI like way as needed with a
 webserver.  In the spirit of finding better technology, I'm hoping to  
 switch
 from Access to Firebird.  After a bit of searching, I have managed to  
 get my
 webserver, D, and Firebird all happily talking via ODBC.  However, I have
 just a small bit of concern about performance after doing a few tests.   
 Not
 that I necessarily need the performance, but that I want to do things in  
 a
 cool and efficient way.

     I'm pretty sure the "problem" is that I'm opening a new ODBC  
 connection
 each time the D .exe is run.  Unfortunately, I'm already used to how  
 fast D
 is and the thought of writing fast D cgi type stuff only to have it  
 slowed
 down by ODBC is annoying.  Now, I could use my webserver's internal  
 database
 scripting language or D as necessary (the webserver keeps connections  
 open
 it seems, instead of the D .exe which of course has no idea that it is  
 being
 run a lot and using the same connection) but I hate when I have to choose
 between functionality and performance! ;)

     Is it unreasonable for me to use D, Firebird, and -ODBC- to connect  
 them
 together ...?  I confess I'm not a database expert, and I was wondering  
 if
 perhaps anyone had a more direct way of tying D and Firebird together or  
 if
 I should get over it and stick with what works!  All insights  
 appreciated...
 =)

 Mark

Jul 07 2005
parent "Mark Delano" <invalid invalid.net> writes:
That is an interesting solution... just keep the .exe running somehow.  And 
yes, that is the Firebird that I mean. ;)
I realize part of my problem is that I'm using somewhat obscure software. 
Thanks for your input!

Mark

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:opstjdfelz23k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz...
I don't know what "Firebird" is, but have you done a google search for 
"fast cgi". I believe it's a variant of CGI where the CGI binary continues 
to run in between requests. It requires web server support (of course). 
I've never written one myself.

 Regan 

Jul 07 2005
prev sibling parent "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
By "Firebird" do you mean:
http://firebird.sourceforge.net/

Regan

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 01:55:19 -0700, MARK DELANO <invalid invalid.net> wrote:

 Greetings,

     I'm interested in using some new technology these days and one of the
 great things I've found is D.  I'm very happy with the little I've used  
 it.
 However, I was hoping to use D in sort of a CGI like way as needed with a
 webserver.  In the spirit of finding better technology, I'm hoping to  
 switch
 from Access to Firebird.  After a bit of searching, I have managed to  
 get my
 webserver, D, and Firebird all happily talking via ODBC.  However, I have
 just a small bit of concern about performance after doing a few tests.   
 Not
 that I necessarily need the performance, but that I want to do things in  
 a
 cool and efficient way.

     I'm pretty sure the "problem" is that I'm opening a new ODBC  
 connection
 each time the D .exe is run.  Unfortunately, I'm already used to how  
 fast D
 is and the thought of writing fast D cgi type stuff only to have it  
 slowed
 down by ODBC is annoying.  Now, I could use my webserver's internal  
 database
 scripting language or D as necessary (the webserver keeps connections  
 open
 it seems, instead of the D .exe which of course has no idea that it is  
 being
 run a lot and using the same connection) but I hate when I have to choose
 between functionality and performance! ;)

     Is it unreasonable for me to use D, Firebird, and -ODBC- to connect  
 them
 together ...?  I confess I'm not a database expert, and I was wondering  
 if
 perhaps anyone had a more direct way of tying D and Firebird together or  
 if
 I should get over it and stick with what works!  All insights  
 appreciated...
 =)

 Mark

Jul 07 2005