sybperl-l Archive

From: Michael Peppler <mpeppler at peppler dot org>
Subject: Re: Sybase-Simple vs DBD::Sybase
Date: Sep 13 2001 8:12PM

David Owen writes:
 > >>>>> "Heinz" == Heinz Ringlhofer  writes:
 > 
 >     Heinz> I know DBD is more DB independent, but thats not one of our main
 >     Heinz> priorities, the main priority is getting better and more
 >     Heinz> standardized "production" code.
 > 
 > Personally I think that the database independence of DBI is a little
 > overrated.  I know that the calling mechanism within perl is independent,
 > but the really interesting stuff, the SQL, definitely is not.  I would
 > probably agree that if your people were having to write scripts against
 > both Sybase and another DBMS, then using DBI would have its benefits, but
 > if they are going to be using Sybase only then let them have the option of
 > the more powerful API.

This is also my feeling - and the DBI calls have to be somewhat
mangled (addition of an outer loop) to handle Sybase calls that return
multiple result sets.

For simple scripts (with plain SQL calls) using one or the other will
make no difference, but for more complex stuff the Sybase-specific
libraries are better.

And there is also the question of bugs - DBD::Sybase is a lot younger
than the Sybase::* modules.

Michael
-- 
Michael Peppler - Data Migrations Inc. - http://www.mbay.net/~mpeppler
mpeppler@peppler.org - mpeppler@mbay.net
International Sybase User Group - http://www.isug.com