Please get the proposal on the gsoc site asap (google is pressuring us)
even if its in draft form as the deadline is looming.
This goes for all proposals.
-g
On 03/31/2009 06:23 PM, Olexandr Melnyk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my name is Olexandr Melnyk and I am a third-year Ukrainian student. I
> would like to present my proposal for Summer of Code "PL/Mono: a
> procedural language for PostgreSQL". The objective of my project is to
> add support for writing PostgreSQL functions in managed languages.
> PostgreSQL functions are often referred to as "stored procedures", but
> apart from that usage they serve a broad range of purposes (eg. they
> are also used for implementing triggers).
>
> So far I've found a couple of places, which I'm uncertain about and
> would like to make clear before I submit an application.
>
> 1) I see three ways of specifying functions in CREATE FUNCTION statement:
> - embedding C# code into the statement (PL/Python and PL/Perl do that):
> CREATE FUNCTION SUM(INT) RETURNS INT
> AS $$
> public static int Add(int x, int y)
> {
> return x + y;
> }
> $$ LANGUAGE PLMONO;
> This approach is the easiest to use, but is C#-specific. And extra
> (little) work is needed to add support for a new managed language.
>
> - by specifying an assembly filename and a fully qualified function name:
> CREATE FUNCTION SUM(INT) RETURNS INT
> AS 'Library1.dll:Namespace2.Class3.Function4'
> LANGUAGE PLMONO;
> Assemblies are searched in directories specified by a config variable,
> or a full path should be provided.
>
> - by a fully qualified function name (this approach is taken by
> PL/Java and is my personal favorite):
> CREATE FUNCTION SUM(INT) RETURNS INT
> AS 'Namespace1.Class2.Function3'
> LANGUAGE PLMONO;
> Functions are searched in assemblies from directories specified by a
> config variable.
>
> 2) If we go with the approach 2 or 3, should all managed functions
> exposed to PostgreSQL world be marked with some special attribute? For
> example:
>
> public static class FunctionLibrary
> {
> [PostgresFunc]
> public static int Add(int x, int y)
> {
> return x + y;
> }
> }
>
> Requiring an attribute would mean that functions can be used from SQL,
> only if they were really intended for that. However, this would also
> mean that to use a harmless function from standard namespaces (like
> System.Math.Abs), one would need to make a wrapper.
>
> I have already briefly discussed my proposal on IRC, but would be glad
> to get some more feedback.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
