On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:18:30 +0000 Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> wrote:
ML> There has been interesting discussions about integer support ML> and new tests lately and I'll follow up in relevant threads in details soon. ML> There is also lots of ideas and brainstorming about future plans: ML> ML> https://github.com/SOCI/soci/wiki/Roadmap BTW, something is broken on this page with "Complete support for C++ integer types" not appearing under its own bullet point. I didn't fix this myself because I thought that you could be still editing this page... [update: I started writing this in the afternoon but got preempted by other things, so you are probably not editing it any more by now, when I finally send it] ML> There are three big things that will either require substantial ML> amount of work or will introduce major changes: ML> ML> 1. Buried headers - major structural change I don't think it's as major as this. The only question is whether we want to provide backwards compatibility or not. Personally I think that it's not really difficult to do it so why not. ML> 2. New tests ML> ML> 3. C++ integer types support ML> ML> Do we all agree to release those features in SOCI 4? This is the major stuff, yes. I'd also like to implement #51, already mentioned in the roadmap, and work on tracing/error reporting. I didn't have time to really think about it yet, so I'm not even sure if it's going to be one thing or two but, in brief, I'd like to be able to: (a) Optionally log all SQL statements being sent to the database. (b) Be able to show not only the text of failing request but also the values of parameters used for it. The last one is especially important as currently our application can give error messages of the form Violation of PRIMARY or UNIQUE KEY constraint "unique_foo_bar" on table "table_name" while executing "insert into table_name(foo, bar) values (:foo, :bar)" which is singularly unhelpful -- we really need to have the values this statement was executed with and not just the placeholders. ML> Initially, having SVN experiences in mind, I thought it's ML> important to do the buried headers and all structural ML> changes first. ML> Is my concern justified, shall we do the revolution first? Even if Git is capable of dealing with renamed/moved files, it's still probably better to do this relatively quickly/atomically because even if you can resolve conflicts resulting from moving a modified file, it doesn't mean you want to or are are going to like doing it. ML> The branches will be most likely long-running branches, ML> so I'd like to publish them in SOCI/soci repo, ML> i.e. ML> feature/buried-headers I'm really not sure why should this one be long-running... Am I missing some extra difficulty here? Thanks, VZ
pgpH2ZOB7qF6g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Own the Future-Intel(R) Level Up Game Demo Contest 2013 Rise to greatness in Intel's independent game demo contest. Compete for recognition, cash, and the chance to get your game on Steam. $5K grand prize plus 10 genre and skill prizes. Submit your demo by 6/6/13. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/12124-176961-30367-2
_______________________________________________ soci-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
