> On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Byron Nikolaidis wrote:
>
> > Now that said, on my own time over the weekend, I will look into what it
> > would take to make the current driver support win3.1. But if it turns
> > out that it would degrade the performance of the driver for 32bit or
> > require major rework, I would probably have to say, it would be best to
> > have 2 separate drivers.
>
> And I've have to say a *definite* no here...the result of that
> would be two different drivers, with different features available to
> it...totally unacceptable.
>
Why?
Pretty much every product that I can think of has separate 16-bit and 32-bit
product groups.
Albeit that most of those are MS products, there is no real reason why
different environments should not have different solutions.
The ODBC spec is well defined so anything conforming to it should be
reasonably feature-compatible.
> That would be like taking our 32bit vs 64bit server and saying
> that since nobody many ppl are using 64bit right now, we're going to get
> rid of those features that are currently broken, instead of trying to
> address them.
>
Not a good example I think. The 16/32-bit ODBC question says nothing about
dropping features. As I said above, ODBC is ODBC: you either conform or you
don't. If there happen to be differences between the levels of conformance or
of performance between 16 and 32-bit models, that would be a pity but not
earth shattering.
Next you will want to ban anything that behaves/performs differently on NT
than on UNIX;-)
> Quite frankly, this whole thread is starting to cause me to
> reconsider my decision to move away from the old driver over to this new
> driver... *sigh*
>
> Marc G. Fournier
> Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
>
Cheers,
Stephen
========================================================================
Stephen Davies Consulting scldad@sdc.com.au
Adelaide, South Australia. Voice: 61-8-82728863
Computing & Network solutions. Fax: 61-8-82741015
