pre .net

hey all,
before .net what was the widely used way of connecting to sql server or any
database server?

thanks,
rodchar

Igor
Fri Jun 22 08:02:14 CDT 2007

"rodchar" <rodchar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:88BA465C-C7FA-4E66-BAFF-51FCD9354586@microsoft.com
> before .net what was the widely used way of connecting to sql server
> or any database server?

ADO, ODBC, OLE DB
--
With best wishes,
Igor Tandetnik

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead. -- RFC 1925

rodchar
Thu Jun 28 09:16:03 CDT 2007

thank you.

"Igor Tandetnik" wrote:

> "rodchar" <rodchar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:88BA465C-C7FA-4E66-BAFF-51FCD9354586@microsoft.com
> > before .net what was the widely used way of connecting to sql server
> > or any database server?
>
> ADO, ODBC, OLE DB
> --
> With best wishes,
> Igor Tandetnik
>
> With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
> necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
> land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
> overhead. -- RFC 1925
>
>
>

rodchar
Tue Jul 17 08:54:01 CDT 2007

what if you wanted to make it portable as possible so it doesn't have any of
the Microsoft libraries, how would talk to SQL Server then?

"Igor Tandetnik" wrote:

> "rodchar" <rodchar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:88BA465C-C7FA-4E66-BAFF-51FCD9354586@microsoft.com
> > before .net what was the widely used way of connecting to sql server
> > or any database server?
>
> ADO, ODBC, OLE DB
> --
> With best wishes,
> Igor Tandetnik
>
> With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
> necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
> land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
> overhead. -- RFC 1925
>
>
>

Igor
Tue Jul 17 10:31:19 CDT 2007

rodchar <rodchar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> what if you wanted to make it portable as possible so it doesn't have
> any of the Microsoft libraries, how would talk to SQL Server then?

ODBC is portable, specified in an ISO standard.
--
With best wishes,
Igor Tandetnik

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead. -- RFC 1925

Ben
Tue Jul 24 18:26:21 CDT 2007


"rodchar" <rodchar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CBA1F9ED-E3CA-4D60-9195-D0152F1D5480@microsoft.com...
> what if you wanted to make it portable as possible so it doesn't have any
> of
> the Microsoft libraries, how would talk to SQL Server then?

Portable in what way? Different database? Different server OS? Different
client OS? Different network protocol? Different programming language?

Any of the mentioned APIs: ADO, OLEDB, ODBC, in addition to JDBC, ADO.NET,
MFC database apis, Perl's DBD, and so on, will talk to a variety of
different databases running on any number of different server OSes. Apache
Portable Runtime and Mozilla XPI also have database layers I think.

Naturally if your client needs to be cross-platform, you'll want to pick a
language that doesn't lock you in, Java w/JDBC, standard C++ with the Apache
database layer, or Perl with DBD would be good choices there. Most of the
other APIs are Windows-only.

If you want access to the same database using the same API from different
programming languages, then one option is to leverage stored procedures
(really hurts database engine portability though) or pick an API with
multiple language bindings like ODBC or OLEDB.