In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907151730370.21671-100000@???>,
Peter Lister <P.Lister@???> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Philip Hazel wrote:
>
>> I haven't had any further comment apart from the postings by Malcolm
>> Beattie and Peter Lister, who were both unhappy at the idea of releasing
>> direct SQL access. Yet I feel that that is exactly what some users
>> actually want, and it means that I don't have to invent an interface
>> between some new syntax and SQL.
>
>I'm not syaing "don't", just suggesting that (a) the complicated stuff is
>probably already available via Perl DBI (which as MB says has already
>addressed many of the problems that Exim is likely to hit) and (b) that
How much overhead is there to dragging in the perl just to do the query.
One of the things I *really* like about exim is the ability for it to
do 99% of what I need done in a single process with reasonable overhead.
>for some purposes an aliasfile like system keeps SQL away from the Exim
>configuration, partly prompted by Nigel's observation that some "easy"
>things can sensibly be handled differently to "hard" things. I don't see
>how (b) involves a "new syntax", and it would useful for people who don't
>need SQL bells+whistles, but could usefully interrogate an existing
>corporate DB view.
The problem is defining the new query language syntax. Until then using
the existing one, even if it is overkill is better than nothing.
>Of course we *are* both perl fans, though MB is a wizard and I'm a mere
>apprentice. :-)
I love it and use perl all the time for applications that are not time
sensitive. But I blanche at the thought of using it for anything I
need to scale up.
--
Stuart Lynne <sl@???> 604-461-7532 <http://edge.fireplug.net>
PGP Fingerprint: 28 E2 A0 15 99 62 9A 00 88 EC A3 EE 2D 1C 15 68
