Comments on: What Is A Database Abstraction Layer?

By: Artemi Krymski

Artemi Krymski — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:19:01 +0000

Totally agree with you. I’ve developed a simple database abstraction layer (SDBA) that cleanly separates DB-specific access functions and provides a *very* simple interface, aimed at productivity. Different implementations of SDBA for different databases are being worked on. The query function “understands” SQL queries and returns different things if its a SELECT, UPDATE, or INSERT. Let me know what you think. Here it is:
http://www.morewhite.com/sdba

By: Petje

Petje — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 03:49:38 +0000

AHA!!! and here I was thinking “Oh My, why does everybody think I’m doing the wrong thing while it looks so smart to me”.. But I’m NOT doing stupid things and it IS a smart thing.. Access layer != Abstraction layer..

Thanks for clearing that up Joseph.. :)

By: yarcles

yarcles — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 01:28:12 +0000

Hell, why dont you just call it a Database Access ABSTRACTION layer, since its ‘disassociated from any specific database access implementation(instance)’.

“Database abstraction layer” shouldnt have such a rigid definition to be only for abstracting a RDBMS in totality.

I would suggest its general usage is any abstraction relating to database implementation like access, SQL portability, logging etc. but does not have to include them all.

And if you want to then get specific which parts of db abstraction you are talking aboutyou can.

I know its all just terminology but it seems a lot of ppl in these threads are selectively using the term abstraction to prove a point.

By: Betcour

Betcour — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:04:52 +0000

Excellent analysis. I use a database access layer myself – mostly because I needed some way to simulate nested transactions within MySQL (which only support non-nested transactions).