Francis De Brabandere wrote: > Re: Code generator > > Hi all, > > I have been testing with MySQL and the only problem I found was that > MySQL is case-sensitive. So I had to remove all to uppercase calls. > > And something else. For my part Benjamin has proven his commitment to > the project. Maybe we can start a vote to let him in? >
+1 (sorry for not being able to contribute at the moment. Does anyone know how I can clone myself?) Regards Rainer > Cheers, > Francis > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Rainer Döbele <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > finally I have found some time to look at the code generator. > > > > > > > > This time I decided to test with Microsoft SQL Server and I ran > straight into a problem: > > > > Unlike the Oracle driver I had before, I had to supply the schema > name with the catalog parameter of DatabaseMetaData.getTables(). > > > > Otherwise it wouldn't find the tables. > > > > Looks like DatabaseMetaData.getTables() behaves very database > specific. > > > > Any idea how we can improve this? > > > > > > > > Another issue is that the driver may create a sequence table to > handle sequences. > > > > There should be a way to ignore this sequence table. > > > > I also had a problem with some character case issues on the column > name. > > > > This should work now. > > > > > > > > Apart from that the general class layout looks good. > > > > I only felt the desire to rename the CodeGen class to CodeGenWriter. > > > > IMO this makes more sense. Hope nobody minds. > > > > > > > > The most important thing missing are the relations. > > > > I think they should be added next. > > > > > > > > And I found that we should remove a few things from the generated > database class. > > > > The two generic methods are not specific to the database supplied an > could go directly in DBDatabase. > > > > I am however not sure, whether I really recommend to work this way. > > > > This is more like traditional ORM's handle it and it breaks our > paradigm - although it is not wrong. > > > > > > > > And the static accessor should go as well. We cannot decide whether > someone wants one or multiple instances and how they should be > accessed. > > > > It is even likely that someone wants to derived a class from the > generated database class in order to be able to generate the classes > again without loosing his modifications. > > > > So if nobody objects I will remove this the next time. > > > > > > > > Long time since we have last heard anything of Thomas Poling. > > > > Maybe he has still not subscribed to empire-db-dev that why I put him > on CC. > > > > Thomas if you read this - give us a sign. > > > > > > > > Benjamin IMO you have done a good job so far. > > > > I was surprised that splitting the process up in a parser and a > writer by only using a DBDatabase object has not been more difficult > (or was it?). > > > > And thanks Francis for checking everything in and fixing those > "findbugs". > > > > > > > > So how about doing the relations next? > > > > Benjamin are you up for that? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.somatik.be > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
