MS> Here's some more experience with POET 2.1 for OS/2:

 MS> a) the preProcessor (PTXX) is at C++ Level 2.0, which
 MS> makes it impossible, to make a ANSI C++ (Level 3)
 MS> Class persistent. This includes
 MS> .) nested classes
 MS>   sample: class a { public: class b {};};
 MS>           class c { public: class b {};};
 MS>   error : redefinition of class b; // wrong. this is C++ 3.0

I've been using nested classes for things such as interprocess message
format definitions and error management classes, so this could be a
problem.  Then again, maybe I wouldn't want to store objects of the classes
in which I've nested other classes -- I'd have to review my code to see
about that.

 MS> .) nested typedefs
 MS>   sample:
 MS>     class a;
 MS>     class b : public a { typedef a inherited; };
 MS>   note : IBM CSET++ ICLUI classes uses this method.

I'm using ICLUI extensively at this point, so this is another problem.
ICLUI actually seems pretty neat -- I wonder how similar Taligent will be
in the way object-oriented interfaces to operating system functions are
implemented.

 MS> .) templates
 MS>   note : IBM CSET++ ICC classes are template based.
 MS>   so, you have either to use the list, set classes
 MS> from poet [see below] or write your own [whats about
 MS> code reuse ?] or buy very simple container classes.

I'm also using templates for somethings.  So far you're making it sound
like POET is from the dark ages of C++.  Does it also have problems with
C++ exceptions?  I'm using those, also.

 MS> so, my impression is: as long as the classes you want
 MS> to make persistent are simple and only contains C++
 MS> 2.0 interface descriptions, POET gives you a useable
 MS> OODB. if you have complex classes, or you want to make
 MS> classes from other vendors persistent, there will be a
 MS> hard way to go.

 MS> additional literature :
 MS> .) BYTE 4/94 : special report on OODB's
 MS> .) BYTE 5/94 : POET in motion. [a test of POET 2.1 for Windows]

 MS> PS: if you have any experience in other OODB's which
 MS> are available for OS/2 and other platforms, i'm very
 MS> interested in reading something.

I am starting to think that in the long run I'd just be better off writing
my own object-oriented database storage routines.  For now,the database
capabilities I need are simple enough that I can get by without third party
libraries or spending months or years coding my own data storage routines.

One of the applications which I am developing is going to have to be able
to get data out of dBase3 files, so I went and bought a copy of OnCmd xBase
for OS/2.  Now I just have to find some time to learn how to use it...


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb