Re: CFFI module

Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> Hopefully it wouldn't be hard to hand-translate CFFI bindings to
> UFFI. Since I don't know CFFI, I don't know how hard it would
> be. Further, given that I don't know CFFI and do obviously know UFFI
> intimately, I wouldn't be able to properly support those bindings
> long-term.

Fair enough.  SWIG / CFFI was the easy way out.  They have a compatibility layer, but I'll probably translate
it.  I may develop first, then replace the bindings layer.

> 
> I like FreeTDS fine. I used it back in 1997-99 when I had data in a
> SQL Server, but I haven't used MS SQL Server since then. 

We still use it at work, and probably won't leave for a while.

> support for MS SQL Server has recently been added to CLSQL using the
> ODBC backend.  

I saw it, but have wanted to wrap FreeTDS for a while.

> While I realize there's some advantage to native
> bindings, I suspect Microsoft has quite heavily optimized their ODBC
> driver for MSSQL.  

While I wouldn't assume that, you're probably right.  In any case, we may have the opportunity to benchmark in
the near future.

> Still, if you'd like to contrib a FreeTDS backend
> using UFFI, I'd certainly consider it for inclusion.

I'll see what I can do.

Cheers,
Brad