From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Interesting ... I was looking at the same class for the same reason > recently. My thought was to split the JDBC-->XML functionality into two > pieces: JDBC-->Internal graph of objects starting with > o.a.c.s.model.Database, and Object Graph->XML (which already exists via > DatabaseWriter). That way, a tool or app that wanted to introspect a set > of database metadata, and then use it directly, could do so without having > to do it in two steps.
Agreed. Thats always been the intention. Then a model-diff could be implemented for determining the DDL required to perform a schema upgrade, to compare the database changes required when upgrading software or to test if a real database has the required schema that a codebase expects etc. > One question I had when looking at this, though ... the data model > represented in the XML document format doesn't totally match that > represented in the o.a.c.s.model package classes. Shouldn't it? It should. I'm sure we can fix it fairly easily. The model needs to be extended a bit right now for indices and maybe extend the relationship support a little. I've been chatting to some of the middlegen folks lately http://boss.bekk.no/boss/middlegen/ who might use commons-sql as the database model on which their UI and Ant/XDoclet tools will generate JDO, CMP and other code from. A few minor extensions to commons-sql model will be required to facilitate this (like supporting relationship cardinality etc). James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
