Brian Aker wrote: > Hi! > > On Oct 10, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Roland Bouman wrote: > >> I think this is a very interesting thought and I would love to see >> this feature. Personally I have never looked in detail into the >> standard with regard to user defined types so I cannot comment on how >> retarded that is. > > It is pretty bad. UDT's are useless in my opinion. What folks want I > find is a way to take unstructured data types (aka blobs) and turn them > into semi structured types while they reside in the database. > >> What do you think? Is this something you feel should be part of the >> type definition? If not, how will values of custom types interact with >> expressions that use them? > > > Doing loadable types is actually pretty straightforward in our design. > The class to create them is simple to understand and handles these issues. > > There are two big problems though: > 1) A way to handle a missing "type". AKA how to say "it means this" and > then what to do if the class that defines it is not available (maybe > resort to being a blob?). > 2) There is in the top of field.cc an array which defines conversions. > To make this work, it would need to go. > > Solve those two problems and adding loadable types is an afternoon > project. No matter what I would like to see number 2 solved. The array > is one big hack.
/me hates that array. A lot. Me would like to see either member functions (possibly ick) or visitor classes that handle conversions. Or something else. But I hate the array! Monty _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
