On 10/15/10 19:37, Jim Starkey wrote:

> Dmitry, with due recognition that you believe you know everything
> worth knowing, let me remind you that I am the original author of ISQL
> and at the time that I wrote it, neither isc_dsql_execute2 nor stored
> procedure existed, so your claim that "this is what our poor ISQL has
> been doing from the very beginning" is a tad weak.

I'm sure that Dmitry supposed 'the very beginning of firebird'.

> Dsql was written as a clone of the DB2 API, circa 1985. As interfaces
> go, it's absolutely terrible. Almost any change to the API introduces
> in compatibility. Simply stated, fixed data structures shared across an
> API are disastrous for upwards compatibility.
>
> May I recommend that the next time somebody wants to make an
> incompatible change to DSQL, don't. Instead, create a new API that can
> be extended in an upwards compatible manner. The base DSRI / OSRI /
> GDS/ ISC/ Firebird API has worked out quite well, as have SQL-based
> APIs. There are many to pick from or to use as models. Put the ugly
> DB2 API out to pasture as a legacy interface and find or build something
> you can live with.

Jim, I've also had such idea, but in this case provider's behavior must
depend upon from what interface was it called.
It's doable, but is it OK from OSRI point of view?