MS SQL connection from Linux
[1/9] from: ammon::rcslv::com at: 14-Apr-2002 19:17
Hi, I am running Command on Linux & I need to connect to an M$ SQL Server. Has this been done? can it be done? I know that it is possible to get ODBC for Linux, I was just wondering if it was necisary. Thanks!! Ammon
[2/9] from: gavin:mckenzie:sympatico:ca at: 14-Apr-2002 23:54
I drive a MS SQL Server 2000 box with Core via SQL Server 2000's built-in HTTP and XML support. It's a wonderful thing. You can do everything you want with SQL commands over HTTP, get result-sets back as XML documents, and you can setup XML documents on the server side that contain queries, XSLT transforms, etc. Gavin.
[3/9] from: maarten:koopmans:surfnet:nl at: 15-Apr-2002 9:30
Hi, Command (2.0 and up) have built-in Mysql support ;-) I have used it extensively under Linux, but.... - strange errors in datatype conversion sometimes happen - it is *slow* OTOH: DocKimbel (Reb/sites/DocKimbel) made a tcp based mysql driver that runs on Core 2.5! It is up to 30 times faster and has *no* problems I know off. You can simple 'do' it to replace the built-in Command implementation, and it has the same way of calling. HTH, Maarten Ammon Johnson wrote:
[4/9] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 15-Apr-2002 10:16
Maarten Koopmans wrote:
> Hi, > Command (2.0 and up) have built-in Mysql support ;-)
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>> has *no* problems I know off. You can simple 'do' it to replace the > built-in Command implementation, and it has the same way of calling.
I haven't done any testing myself yet, but if it is so, it's pretty ... ehm .... Our company paind 700 USD for /Command, which does not seem to be up-to-date enough to compete with free implementation? I think that once DocKimbel releases his free FastCGI protocol, someone else does ODBC library wrapper and there is no reason anymore for anyone to buy /Command, as everything else is in View/Pro ... ;-) ... ah .... I forgot there is no Core/Pro, so Unix users would still be required to buy Command, because of that X11 gfx thing .... -pekr-
[5/9] from: maarten:koopmans:surfnet:nl at: 15-Apr-2002 10:40
Ah.. I read the subject again. Ms-sql Sorry... --Maarten Maarten Koopmans wrote:
[6/9] from: maarten:koopmans:surfnet:nl at: 15-Apr-2002 12:18
I know, I know. Mailed it to feedback 6 months ago or so. But... Oracle support on Linux was also necessary, so Command was the right choice. Even better: you can easily replace the mysql protocol in Command, so... Nevertheless, their C mysql implementation has room for improvement ;-) Another thing: The pure REBOL solution by DocKimbel is faster (!) than the C implementation on the REBOL layer ;-) They are better than they think at RT! --Maarten Petr Krenzelok wrote:
[7/9] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 15-Apr-2002 13:25
Maarten Koopmans wrote:
> I know, I know. Mailed it to feedback 6 months ago or so. > But... Oracle support on Linux was also necessary, so Command
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>> than the C implementation on the REBOL layer ;-) > They are better than they think at RT!
Ha! Then those trying to develop Rebol in Java, should try to develop Rebol in Rebol itself ... :-) Anyway - IOS has to be making them real money, as business Rebol users = Command users are being left one year without the single, and as I can see from your post, it really needs an update :-) ... Or just maybe they sold Command just to you and me, so it is not worth to update it? ;-) -pekr-
[8/9] from: ammon:rcslv at: 15-Apr-2002 6:18
This sounds like the most likely solution for me ;-) I guess I will grab the 'Teach Yourself XML in....' & give it a go. ;-) Thanks!! Ammon A short time ago, Gavin F. McKenzie, sent an email stating:
[9/9] from: sqlab:gmx at: 15-Apr-2002 14:40
> Maarten Koopmans wrote: > > Hi,
<<quoted lines omitted: 19>>> -pekr- > >
I did an ODBC-wrapper in Command1.0 times and from time to time I am still using it with /View or Command2.0, as it is more flexible than the native implementation. But I think it has a few memory flaws and is not made according Rebol/port conventions. I have a tcp/ip connection to the Cache ODBC&JDBC-server port too. If anyone wants to clean them up... AR
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted