On 8/30/06, Bas Driessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 15:36 +0200, Vivien Malerba wrote: > On 8/30/06, Bas Driessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > > > > > > Further to the discussion regarding the creation of the table. There is > the > Path: /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_TYPE. Here a complete type must be set. For > > postgresql that is varchar(30) for instance. As mentioned before I would > > like to see this part more provider independent. Perhaps we can reach some > > sort of a compromise. First I tell you what I would like to see: > > > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_GTYPE > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE > > > example values: > GDA_TYPE_NUMERIC > 10 > 2 > > This then will be > translated by the postgresql provider for instance to > numeric(10,2). > > > To provide both options to the user, we can say that if > > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_TYPE (the current situation), this overrules any > > situation. If it is not set, the user should set > > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_GTYPE > > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE (if applicable) > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE (if > applicable) > > Then for the various providers we can make this into > something that works > for the data provider. > I agree on having the > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE and /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE as this makes things more > provider independant. However I prefer to stay with a /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_TYPE > because it's closer to what a user can easily fill-in and it's easy for a > programmer (using > gda_server_provider_get_default_dbms_type()) to convert > from a GType to a DBMS type. It also makes it possible to check and take > actions when the provider doesn't support a particular GType before trying > to execute the action. So I propose to have /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_TYPE > (required) /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE (optional) /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE > (optional) Is it Ok for you? If so, can you make the modifications in the > xml.in files and in the -ddl.c files for some or all of the providers? > Ok with me, but if you bring back everything to just COLUMN_TYPE (as > opposed to also have COLUMN_GTYPE), how would you deal with the situation if > a user sets the values as follows: > > numeric(10,5) (rather than GDA_TYPE_NUMERIC) > 10 > 5 > > In this case we should ignore the size and the scale, since > numeric(10,5)(10,5) is rubbish of course. What is the best approach to deal > with this you reckon? This is a potential problem and whatever we end up doing, the user will always have the responsibility to avoid entering stupid things (my point is that we can't make something completely water-proof). So I suppose in this case we should just notice that there are parenthesis and then ignore the /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE and /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE values, just as we should ignore them when the data type does not support size and scale attributes. > > I am more than happy to make the changes for the postgresql and mysql > providers. Once I have everything stable/working again, I want/have to look > into the Oracle provider as well. I need to bring that to the same level in > libgda as mysql and postgresql (including recordset etc etc). Ok, great! BTW: do you have/want a gmail account so it is possible to do some chat?
OK Vivien will start working on the SIZE/SCALE this weekend.
Do not have gmail as I don't want to place my private stuff on 3rd party servers. Very off-topic, but why do I need gmail for a chat? Don't we have IRC channels for that and SIP protocol for voice etc?
_______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
