Re: ESQL or CLI - which to use

Roger Reynolds wrote in message <728kj4$7hv@enews4.newsguy.com>... >I was looking at using CLI for developing client applications for Universal >Server, >and was told by an Informix SE that CLI does not support the Universal >Server's >extensions that go beyond "standard" SQL (ie not SQL3, not user defined >types, >and all that other "good stuff") He strongly suggested ESQL instead, as it >does support everything the IUS can do. > It really depends on your need. I personally prefer ESQL over any ODBC connection to database. I do not have much experience with latest ODBC drivers. Older ones never matched the performance of ESQL/C. Also ODBC design implies two-tier client/server architecture which may be replaced by multi-tier client server applications because of the WEB push. Some will argue that writing ODBC application increases the application potability. In theory, that is true. But in reality, this is often not the case. How many organization do you know that changed database server but did not change application? Also, changing database vendor is major finincial undertakings. >I'm OK with using ESQL, but, was this reasoning accurate? >I think that maybe older versions of CLI didn't support these extensions, >but >later versions do (I have 2.8) Is that correct? > I think CLI is still limited and it is based on ODBC 2.5 specification. Hopefully someone in this list will provide you with better insight. >I think that RogueWave dbtools.h++ uses ESQL. Anybody know if thats >correct? That is correct. >Anybody used that package with comments either way that they'd like to >share? >I think it would be sufficient for my purposes to just put the ESQL in to my >C++ code. >No problems doing that so far. > >Finally, anybody know of an ESQL mode for emacs :?) > >============================================================ >Roger S. Reynolds >email: rsr@rogerware.com rsr@softix.com > Web: http://www.rogerware.com > > > Thanks Idiot