That I am aware of. But my point is that if I am not concerned with the
application interfacing on other than postgres, it isn't an issue, correct?
Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark, Joel" <jclark@lendingtree.com>
To: "'Adam Lang'" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>;
<pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] Connecting remotely.
> One layer of abstraction...
>
> If you use ADO you gain some portability across backends (limited, but
still
> enough to warrant its investigation). If you code to libpq.dll, then not
> only is the SQL PG specific, but the connection libraries as well.
>
> Joel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Lang [mailto:aalang@rutgersinsurance.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:40 AM
> To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connecting remotely.
>
>
> What's the difference between having the client use ADO to talk to the
> database as opposed to an interface using the postgresql client libraries?
>
> Adam Lang
> Systems Engineer
> Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sergio A. Kessler" <sak@tribctas.gba.gov.ar>
> To: <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>; <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connecting remotely.
>
>
> > "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com> el día Wed, 1 Nov 2000
09:52:35
> > -0500, escribió:
> >
> > [...]
> > >
> > >What are people's thoughts?
> >
> > people's thoughts are that you really want to design a multi-thier
> > design (for example a 3 layer design), where
> >
> > / client1 (browser)
> > database <---> bussines rules - client2 (browser)
> > (ie. apache, php,...) \ .....
> >
> >
> > if your client has direct access to the database, you design is
broken...
> >
> > sergio
