2014-03-19 12:40 GMT-03:00 Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net>:

Am 19.03.2014 16:33, schrieb Roberto Spadim:
> i don`t know why, but many functions (of php for example) could be implemented easily,
> but why not implement it? there`s a sql 2000 standard or something like it to disallow
> this kind of functions? maybe we could create a plugin with many function native to
> mariadb, and set it on/off to allow a mysql compatibility

well, i tell you what happens finally

* most users are not reading any manual
* just develop by trial-and-error
* starting using all that nice things
* then they quit
* the person taking their task in future needs to migrate
* the application has a "vendor-lockin" and is not portable

and no, i am not speaking for the developers

i am speaking for myself after had to struggle way too
often the last 10 years with not well planned software
and the resulting upgrade / migration pains

/) i agree with you, i have the same problem many old software with stored functions 
but for example, well know standards (base64) could be implemented without problems
what happened with mysql to only allow base64 at 2013, instead of 2006? i send a patch in 2006 with a udf function and they just looked and forget about that :/

now with json, why not implement it at mariadb? it's just to parse strings i know, but it's very usefull when you have a document inside mariadb (blob column) and need a information inside that column/json text

there're many others functions that could be implemented, and i know mariadb have a jira tracker, with priorities, the point is, who tell what is more important and what isn't, and who tell if we could implement or not?

 


_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
Post to     : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp




--
Roberto Spadim
SPAEmpresarial
Eng. Automação e Controle