At 14:48 25.05.2002 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >On Friday 24 May 2002 23:37, Kevin Steppe wrote: > > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > SQL is by default an evil thing and should not be exposed to users, nor > > > programmers. > > > > That is rather opinionated, just like the following: > > SQL is by default an incredibly elegant, simple, and powerful > > programming language -- in some ways more elegant and powerful than > > Java. All programmers would benefit from learning SQL. > >When I say "evil" I mean "current specification is not strict enough and >allows for the implementation vendors to extend it in all kinds of >incompatible directions", hence making "pluggability" a paper-tiger.
Log4j-dev mailing list enters the Guiness world records book for the first Java vs. SQL discussion. By the way, Python rules! Long live Fortran. >However, I am arguing that a rather fixed format is established, or ChainSaw >and others will never manage to pick up the info, and you would discourage >small 3rd party tools to analyze the data. > >So, to re-phrase; >Instead of talking about JDBC appenders, let met introduce the concept of >Retrievers, which are implemented as a companion to Appenders. >The rationale is that exactly the same is true for non-JDBC appenders, >such as >for XML and even text files. >If the Retriever interface is established, then it is up to the Appender >writer to provide, or risking that people won't use it due to inaccessability >of the output. > >As for JDBCAppender, I think it will evolve a little bit, so that the >Retriever interface would/can be supported, and free format Insert statements >are probably not reasonable. If I understand correctly Niclas, you just volunteered to write a fixed-table JDBCAppender and a JDBCRetreiver, did you? >My highly opinionated assertion is most humble, of course. If it is backed up by code then it no longer needs to be humble. >Niclas -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
