Re: FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0

valdir.marcos

Any news on FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0?

Firebird 3.0 Release Candidate 1 is available for testing
http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/news/firebird-3-0-release-candidate-1-is-available-for-testing-77358/

New Development: version 3.0
    Release Candidate 1 has been released in November 2015;
    Release Candidate 2 is expected in December 2015.
http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/roadmap/

 

Em 17/06/2013 10:21, Ismael L. Donis Garcia escreveu:

No, I have understood that not yet is 100 % implemented for 2,5

A great sorrow that the developer or developers do not find frequently is 
really its implementation

Best Regards
========
| ISMAEL |
========
Website: www.sisconge.byethost15.comwww.sisconge.hol.es

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Valdir Marcos" <[hidden email]>
To: "Development list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:03 PM
Subject: [Flamerobin-devel] FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0
I know Firebird 3.0 is still in alpha stage, but is FlameRobin getting ready to work with Firebird 3.0? It has already more than one year since we are using Firebird 3.0 on a few test clients without big issues. If possible, it would be very helpful and productive for us to start using FlameRobin on this environment instead of only working with isql. Thanks.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0

marius adrian popa
Administrator
Flamerobin should work with 2.5.x core features without problems with firebird 3.0
For example if don't use the new features : bool type , packages 
Some of them are usable but they are not surfaced in the right tree (identity , packages ...)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:14 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Any news on FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0?

Firebird 3.0 Release Candidate 1 is available for testing
http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/news/firebird-3-0-release-candidate-1-is-available-for-testing-77358/

New Development: version 3.0
    Release Candidate 1 has been released in November 2015;
    Release Candidate 2 is expected in December 2015.
http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/roadmap/

 

Em 17/06/2013 10:21, Ismael L. Donis Garcia escreveu:

No, I have understood that not yet is 100 % implemented for 2,5

A great sorrow that the developer or developers do not find frequently is 
really its implementation

Best Regards
========
| ISMAEL |
========
Website: www.sisconge.byethost15.comwww.sisconge.hol.es

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Valdir Marcos" <[hidden email]>
To: "Development list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:03 PM
Subject: [Flamerobin-devel] FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0
I know Firebird 3.0 is still in alpha stage, but is FlameRobin getting ready to work with Firebird 3.0? It has already more than one year since we are using Firebird 3.0 on a few test clients without big issues. If possible, it would be very helpful and productive for us to start using FlameRobin on this environment instead of only working with isql. Thanks.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0

Olivier Mascia-3
If I'm not mistaken, and unless some rewrite was done at some point which I would not have seen happen, Flamerobin currently depends on IBPP which has not been updated for a while (some years, except for minor details), and does not expose support for specific features of Firebird 3.

Anyway, the people behind initial IBPP (version up to 2.x) will now start using Firebird 3 in real projects, now that the project officially reached release candidate. For the last year(s) while FB 3 was brewing, these people (my people at TIP Group), partially sponsored (like, hopefully, other groups) the Firebird project, but refrained to push further its dependency on Firebird until the project was able to deliver something 'real'. We even explored some other tracks NOT involving Firebird anymore.  It was decided that public Firebird 3 release candidate code would be the trigger for us to revive our Firebird track. And now it's there.

Within these next 3 months (I mean somewhere between today and mid-february), we will share with the community how we will interface with Firebird 3 from our C++ projects. There are two paths which were experimented with over these last 2 years. One involves a simple 'upgrade' to IBPP 2.x and offers the advantage of very few code changes in host applications. The other is different, I won't say more for now until it get eventually open-sourced. Either path will be selected, we will retain a single one for our own code and will open-source and support that single one. If it happens to be the path involving the upgraded IBPP, I'm pretty sure Flamerobin project would be able to leverage it quite rapidly. The other path might involve a significant rewrite to host applications, which might not be overwhelming at all from what I know of the code architecture of Flamerobin.

--
Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Best Regards,
Olivier Mascia, integral.be/om

> Le 11 nov. 2015 à 11:02, marius adrian popa <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Flamerobin should work with 2.5.x core features without problems with firebird 3.0
> For example if don't use the new features : bool type , packages
> Some of them are usable but they are not surfaced in the right tree (identity , packages ...)
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:14 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Any news on FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0?
>
> Firebird 3.0 Release Candidate 1 is available for testing
> http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/news/firebird-3-0-release-candidate-1-is-available-for-testing-77358/
>
> New Development: version 3.0
>     Release Candidate 1 has been released in November 2015;
>     Release Candidate 2 is expected in December 2015.
> http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/roadmap/
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel

signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0

marius adrian popa
Administrator
Thanks for the response , It would be nice if you could remove the license restriction of ibpp also one of my hopes is to use the MPL 2.0 license for ibpp so it can be used in libreoffice https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses/
(the ib c api is not so friendly like ibpp is).

For firebird 3.0 i would contribute back in the main firebird repository and use and document the new api 

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Olivier Mascia <[hidden email]> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, and unless some rewrite was done at some point which I would not have seen happen, Flamerobin currently depends on IBPP which has not been updated for a while (some years, except for minor details), and does not expose support for specific features of Firebird 3.

Anyway, the people behind initial IBPP (version up to 2.x) will now start using Firebird 3 in real projects, now that the project officially reached release candidate. For the last year(s) while FB 3 was brewing, these people (my people at TIP Group), partially sponsored (like, hopefully, other groups) the Firebird project, but refrained to push further its dependency on Firebird until the project was able to deliver something 'real'. We even explored some other tracks NOT involving Firebird anymore.  It was decided that public Firebird 3 release candidate code would be the trigger for us to revive our Firebird track. And now it's there.

Within these next 3 months (I mean somewhere between today and mid-february), we will share with the community how we will interface with Firebird 3 from our C++ projects. There are two paths which were experimented with over these last 2 years. One involves a simple 'upgrade' to IBPP 2.x and offers the advantage of very few code changes in host applications. The other is different, I won't say more for now until it get eventually open-sourced. Either path will be selected, we will retain a single one for our own code and will open-source and support that single one. If it happens to be the path involving the upgraded IBPP, I'm pretty sure Flamerobin project would be able to leverage it quite rapidly. The other path might involve a significant rewrite to host applications, which might not be overwhelming at all from what I know of the code architecture of Flamerobin.

--
Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Best Regards,
Olivier Mascia, integral.be/om

> Le 11 nov. 2015 à 11:02, marius adrian popa <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Flamerobin should work with 2.5.x core features without problems with firebird 3.0
> For example if don't use the new features : bool type , packages
> Some of them are usable but they are not surfaced in the right tree (identity , packages ...)
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:14 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Any news on FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0?
>
> Firebird 3.0 Release Candidate 1 is available for testing
> http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/news/firebird-3-0-release-candidate-1-is-available-for-testing-77358/
>
> New Development: version 3.0
>     Release Candidate 1 has been released in November 2015;
>     Release Candidate 2 is expected in December 2015.
> http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/roadmap/
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0

Olivier Mascia-3
Hi Marius,

> Le 11 nov. 2015 à 13:33, marius adrian popa <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> For firebird 3.0 i would contribute back in the main firebird repository and use and document the new api

Maybe it could make sense for a Flamerobin version dedicated to Firebird 3 to use its newer 'interfaces' API, unwrapped.

But believe me - or not :) - for large C++ business applications, the naked Firebird 3 'interfaces' API is simply a no-go.  I like the idea that it's very thin and low-level oriented, despite it using some C++ classes: for this I'd call it a 'C' 2.0 API and I see it very well suited for being used by middleware developers.

But you can't ask a business application developer to talk to the database using that API.  There are simply too much technical details to take into account. It's obviously better than with the antique isc_ C API.  But still way too much details to keep the focus of any business C++ programming on the real task at hand instead of the details of interfacing with the database.  I hope people will correctly see my point: I'm not disparaging that new API.  I'm just saying it is not designed for use by programmers who's job is about their own code rather than how to deal with the database to get the job done. :)

It needs some wrapper to make it easier to use for a whole class of developers.  There certainly is room for an even higher abstraction level than IBPP brought to the isc_ antique API.

--
Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Best Regards,
Olivier Mascia, integral.be/om


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel

signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FlameRobin and Firebird 3.0

valdir.marcos

Hi.

Any news on ibpp version 3?
http://www.ibpp.org/reference/version3
https://sourceforge.net/p/ibpp/mailman/ibpp-discuss/

Will Flamerobin be able to open databases on Firebird 2.5, 3.0 and 4.0 simultaneously?
Or there Will be one Flamerobin version for Firebird 2.5 (and previus versions) and another Flamerobin version for Firebird 3.0 and 4.0?
http://firebirdsql.org/en/roadmap/
http://firebirdsql.org/en/planning-board/

Thanks,

Valdir Marcos



 

Em 12/11/2015 20:18, Olivier Mascia escreveu:

Hi Marius,
Le 11 nov. 2015 à 13:33, marius adrian popa <[hidden email]> a écrit : For firebird 3.0 i would contribute back in the main firebird repository and use and document the new api
Maybe it could make sense for a Flamerobin version dedicated to Firebird 3 to use its newer 'interfaces' API, unwrapped.

But believe me - or not :) - for large C++ business applications, the naked Firebird 3 'interfaces' API is simply a no-go.  I like the idea that it's very thin and low-level oriented, despite it using some C++ classes: for this I'd call it a 'C' 2.0 API and I see it very well suited for being used by middleware developers.

But you can't ask a business application developer to talk to the database using that API.  There are simply too much technical details to take into account. It's obviously better than with the antique isc_ C API.  But still way too much details to keep the focus of any business C++ programming on the real task at hand instead of the details of interfacing with the database.  I hope people will correctly see my point: I'm not disparaging that new API.  I'm just saying it is not designed for use by programmers who's job is about their own code rather than how to deal with the database to get the job done. :)

It needs some wrapper to make it easier to use for a whole class of developers.  There certainly is room for an even higher abstraction level than IBPP brought to the isc_ antique API.

--
Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Best Regards,
Olivier Mascia, integral.be/om


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Flamerobin-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flamerobin-devel