Hi Lukas, "Merging" sounds easy, but it isn't :-) Consider merging licenses, > copyrights, ownership, responsibility, mission statements, etc. etc. > Sorry, for the confusion: by merging I just mean the merging of the metadata/connection handling (or come up with some common interface).
> > So in a more realistic scenario, the two tools could improve cooperation. > Could you be specific about your use-cases? Where do you run into trouble, > when meta data info is duplicated? How could this be improved (on the jOOQ > side, on the Liquibase side?) > We use both tool to create an abstraction over the database specific syntax. We cannot generate classes with JOOQ (as schema is on the fly constructed) and we do not use change-set management feature of the liquibase. One of the usage scenario: we import csv like files into a database: -- process the file: metadata like column names, types (and length), table names are inferred -- the table is created with the help of liquibase --- we convert column names to liquibase.database.structure.Column and use the its TypeConverter class to get the right type mapping --- then we create the table -- the content is loaded by jooq --- we convert column names to org.jooq.Field and lookup the type representation in org.jooq.impl.SQLDataType --- then we load the data Cheers, Gaboo > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
