Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 5/29/2012 5:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a
static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that
ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually
think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we
might want to implement in the branch.
Adam,
I commented on the commit, but you didn't reply, so I will try again in
this thread.
If you don't mind, I would like to clean up the EntityConditionVisitor
interface so it looks more like a conventional visitor pattern.
Also, I was wondering if we could add some timing metrics to the entity
engine. Maybe keep an average query time per entity, and throw an
exception when the average exceeds a configurable threshold. This would
facilitate server overload management.
-Adrian
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 05/30/2012 02:46 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a
static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a
properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId)
FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now
that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when
combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a
patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a
view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually
think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a
single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I
still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we
might want to implement in the branch.
Adam,
I commented on the commit, but you didn't reply, so I will try again
in this thread.
I saw, but didn't really think it needed a comment. I guess I should
have given an affirmative response, instead of no response. I assumed
that no response is not negative(yeah, that's a double negative).
If you don't mind, I would like to clean up the EntityConditionVisitor
interface so it looks more like a conventional visitor pattern.
I'm down to whatever other people for, within reason. Tbh, I'm
currently tweaking EntityFieldValue, which is used by
ModelViewEntity.ViewEntityCondition, in a hackish way; it means I'm
having to tweak the visitor pattern, which sucks.
I'm the one who added the visitor pattern all those ages ago(goes back
to svn.ofbiz.org timeframe); I'd be fine with ripping it completely
out, as we(brainfood) don't use it anywhere.
Also, I was wondering if we could add some timing metrics to the
entity engine. Maybe keep an average query time per entity, and throw
an exception when the average exceeds a configurable threshold. This
would facilitate server overload management.
There is already code that does that, when a query takes a long time.
If you do some stats(make it per-entity), make certain to use
AtomicInteger(or other AtomicFoo class). You don't need to use
ConcurrentMap, as the list of entities to gather stats against is
static. Just created the map at startup, or even store the stats in
ModelEntity.
Maybe the following will do what you want. It's non-blocking
concurrent, makes use of work-borrowing type stuff(the double loop
update of 2 variables).
class Statistics {
class Stat {
AtomicReferenceLong[] countDurationAvgRef;
QueueLong window;
void add(long nanos) {
window.add(nanos);
while (true) {
Long[] oldValues = countDurationAvgRef.get();
long newCount = oldValues[0] + 1;
Long[] newValues = new Long[] {
newCount,
oldValues[1] + nanos,
oldValues[2] + (nanos / newCount)
};
if (countDurationAvgRef.compareAndSet(oldValues, newValues)) {
break;
}
}
while (true) {
Long[] oldValues = countDurationAvgRef.get();
long oldCount = oldValues[0];
if (oldCount = maxSize) {
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 5/30/2012 4:30 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:46 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Rouxjacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heathdoo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heathdoo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a
static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a
properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId)
FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now
that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when
combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a
patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a
view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually
think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a
single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I
still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we
might want to implement in the branch.
Adam,
I commented on the commit, but you didn't reply, so I will try again
in this thread.
I saw, but didn't really think it needed a comment. I guess I should
have given an affirmative response, instead of no response. I assumed
that no response is not negative(yeah, that's a double negative).
If you don't mind, I would like to clean up the EntityConditionVisitor
interface so it looks more like a conventional visitor pattern.
I'm down to whatever other people for, within reason. Tbh, I'm
currently tweaking EntityFieldValue, which is used by
ModelViewEntity.ViewEntityCondition, in a hackish way; it means I'm
having to tweak the visitor pattern, which sucks.
I'm the one who added the visitor pattern all those ages ago(goes back
to svn.ofbiz.org timeframe); I'd be fine with ripping it completely
out, as we(brainfood) don't use it anywhere.
I need to reacquaint myself with the entity engine code. I was thinking
the visitor pattern could be used to construct the SQL string instead of
the complicated if-then-else code spread across a number of classes. We
could use different visitors for different databases.
From my perspective, the entity engine implementation seems a bit
tangled, and I was trying to come up with a strategy to simplify things.
Also, I was wondering if we could add some timing metrics to the
entity engine. Maybe keep an average query time per entity, and throw
an exception when the average exceeds a configurable threshold. This
would facilitate server overload management.
There is already code that does that, when a query takes a long time.
I don't see any code that does that.
If you do some stats(make it per-entity), make certain to use
AtomicInteger(or other AtomicFoo class). You don't need to use
ConcurrentMap, as the list of entities to gather stats against is
static. Just created the map at startup, or even store the stats in
ModelEntity.
Maybe the following will do what you want. It's non-blocking
concurrent, makes use of work-borrowing type stuff(the double loop
update of 2 variables).
class Statistics {
class Stat {
AtomicReferenceLong[] countDurationAvgRef;
QueueLong window;
void add(long nanos) {
window.add(nanos);
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 05/30/2012 11:47 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/30/2012 4:30 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:46 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Rouxjacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heathdoo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heathdoo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a
static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a
properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId)
FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now
that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when
combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a
patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the
framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to
allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in
ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed
java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a
view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually
think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using
a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a
single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I
still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the
reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we
might want to implement in the branch.
Adam,
I commented on the commit, but you didn't reply, so I will try again
in this thread.
I saw, but didn't really think it needed a comment. I guess I should
have given an affirmative response, instead of no response. I assumed
that no response is not negative(yeah, that's a double negative).
If you don't mind, I would like to clean up the EntityConditionVisitor
interface so it looks more like a conventional visitor pattern.
I'm down to whatever other people for, within reason. Tbh, I'm
currently tweaking EntityFieldValue, which is used by
ModelViewEntity.ViewEntityCondition, in a hackish way; it means I'm
having to tweak the visitor pattern, which sucks.
I'm the one who added the visitor pattern all those ages ago(goes back
to svn.ofbiz.org timeframe); I'd be fine with ripping it completely
out, as we(brainfood) don't use it anywhere.
I need to reacquaint myself with the entity engine code. I was
thinking the visitor pattern could be used to construct the SQL string
instead of the complicated if-then-else code spread across a number of
classes. We could use different visitors for different databases.
Yes, that was my original thought. However, I don't think it's that
simple anymore. I've got a much better understanding of the entity
system since I wrote the visitor stuff.
I'd actually like to see my generic sql code be used to represent
entitymodel, then add sql-sql conversion code. I have an xslt that
can read *all* entitymodel.xml and convert it to entitymodel.sql, or
entitymodel.java. I used the former to verify that my sql parsing was
featureful enough.
From my perspective, the entity engine implementation seems a bit
tangled, and I was trying to come up with a strategy to simplify things.
It's not too bad, imho; just has some issues with view abstraction
that can't be currently represented. It's getting much closer to not
having to do raw sql anymore thru jdbc.
Also, I was wondering if we could add some timing metrics to the
entity engine. Maybe keep an average query time per entity, and throw
an exception when the average exceeds a configurable
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 5/30/2012 6:06 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/30/2012 11:47 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/30/2012 4:30 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:46 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Rouxjacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heathdoo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heathdoo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a
static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a
properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId)
FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now
that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when
combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a
patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the
framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to
allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in
ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed
java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a
view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually
think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using
a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a
single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I
still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the
reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we
might want to implement in the branch.
Adam,
I commented on the commit, but you didn't reply, so I will try again
in this thread.
I saw, but didn't really think it needed a comment. I guess I should
have given an affirmative response, instead of no response. I assumed
that no response is not negative(yeah, that's a double negative).
Non-communication is not communication. ;)
If you don't mind, I would like to clean up the EntityConditionVisitor
interface so it looks more like a conventional visitor pattern.
I'm down to whatever other people for, within reason. Tbh, I'm
currently tweaking EntityFieldValue, which is used by
ModelViewEntity.ViewEntityCondition, in a hackish way; it means I'm
having to tweak the visitor pattern, which sucks.
I'm the one who added the visitor pattern all those ages ago(goes back
to svn.ofbiz.org timeframe); I'd be fine with ripping it completely
out, as we(brainfood) don't use it anywhere.
I need to reacquaint myself with the entity engine code. I was
thinking the visitor pattern could be used to construct the SQL string
instead of the complicated if-then-else code spread across a number of
classes. We could use different visitors for different databases.
Yes, that was my original thought. However, I don't think it's that
simple anymore. I've got a much better understanding of the entity
system since I wrote the visitor stuff.
I'd actually like to see my generic sql code be used to represent
entitymodel, then add sql-sql conversion code. I have an xslt that
can read *all* entitymodel.xml and convert it to entitymodel.sql, or
entitymodel.java. I used the former to verify that my sql parsing was
featureful enough.
You lost me. How will this look when it is finished? Will the entity
model XML files be replaced with SQL files?
From my perspective, the entity engine implementation seems a bit
tangled, and I was trying to come up with a strategy to simplify things.
It's not too bad, imho; just has some issues with view abstraction
that can't be currently represented. It's getting much closer to not
having to do raw sql anymore thru jdbc.
Also, I was wondering if we could add some timing
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 05/30/2012 12:22 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I need to reacquaint myself with the entity engine code. I was thinking the visitor pattern could be used to construct the SQL string instead of the complicated if-then-else code spread across a number of classes. We could use different visitors for different databases. Yes, that was my original thought. However, I don't think it's that simple anymore. I've got a much better understanding of the entity system since I wrote the visitor stuff. I'd actually like to see my generic sql code be used to represent entitymodel, then add sql-sql conversion code. I have an xslt that can read *all* entitymodel.xml and convert it to entitymodel.sql, or entitymodel.java. I used the former to verify that my sql parsing was featureful enough. You lost me. How will this look when it is finished? Will the entity model XML files be replaced with SQL files? No. I just used the xslt to verify that the actual sql parsing code, and the built-up object graph, were capable of representing everything mentioned in entitymodel.xml. Also, I was wondering if we could add some timing metrics to the entity engine. Maybe keep an average query time per entity, and throw an exception when the average exceeds a configurable threshold. This would facilitate server overload management. There is already code that does that, when a query takes a long time. I don't see any code that does that. I've seen lines in the log file where queries take too long. GenericDAO.selectListIteratorByCondition() has an example for that, but it's not done in select(). Thanks. That code simply logs the time it took to execute a query. I'm proposing code that will monitor queries and provide feedback to a server management process. Sure. The quickly typed example class I gave would help in that.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 5/30/2012 6:29 PM, Adam Heath wrote: On 05/30/2012 12:22 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I need to reacquaint myself with the entity engine code. I was thinking the visitor pattern could be used to construct the SQL string instead of the complicated if-then-else code spread across a number of classes. We could use different visitors for different databases. Yes, that was my original thought. However, I don't think it's that simple anymore. I've got a much better understanding of the entity system since I wrote the visitor stuff. I'd actually like to see my generic sql code be used to represent entitymodel, then add sql-sql conversion code. I have an xslt that can read *all* entitymodel.xml and convert it to entitymodel.sql, or entitymodel.java. I used the former to verify that my sql parsing was featureful enough. You lost me. How will this look when it is finished? Will the entity model XML files be replaced with SQL files? No. I just used the xslt to verify that the actual sql parsing code, and the built-up object graph, were capable of representing everything mentioned in entitymodel.xml. Also, I was wondering if we could add some timing metrics to the entity engine. Maybe keep an average query time per entity, and throw an exception when the average exceeds a configurable threshold. This would facilitate server overload management. There is already code that does that, when a query takes a long time. I don't see any code that does that. I've seen lines in the log file where queries take too long. GenericDAO.selectListIteratorByCondition() has an example for that, but it's not done in select(). Thanks. That code simply logs the time it took to execute a query. I'm proposing code that will monitor queries and provide feedback to a server management process. Sure. The quickly typed example class I gave would help in that. Yes, that will help. I'm also looking at the Sandstorm (SEDA) implementation for ideas.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/30/2012 6:06 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/30/2012 11:47 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/30/2012 4:30 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:46 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Rouxjacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heathdoo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heathdoo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a
static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a
properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId)
FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now
that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when
combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a
patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the
framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to
allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in
ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed
java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a
view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually
think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using
a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a
single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I
still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the
reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we
might want to implement in the branch.
Adam,
I commented on the commit, but you didn't reply, so I will try again
in this thread.
I saw, but didn't really think it needed a comment. I guess I should
have given an affirmative response, instead of no response. I assumed
that no response is not negative(yeah, that's a double negative).
Non-communication is not communication. ;)
Especially when you ask
Jacques
If you don't mind, I would like to clean up the EntityConditionVisitor
interface so it looks more like a conventional visitor pattern.
I'm down to whatever other people for, within reason. Tbh, I'm
currently tweaking EntityFieldValue, which is used by
ModelViewEntity.ViewEntityCondition, in a hackish way; it means I'm
having to tweak the visitor pattern, which sucks.
I'm the one who added the visitor pattern all those ages ago(goes back
to svn.ofbiz.org timeframe); I'd be fine with ripping it completely
out, as we(brainfood) don't use it anywhere.
I need to reacquaint myself with the entity engine code. I was
thinking the visitor pattern could be used to construct the SQL string
instead of the complicated if-then-else code spread across a number of
classes. We could use different visitors for different databases.
Yes, that was my original thought. However, I don't think it's that
simple anymore. I've got a much better understanding of the entity
system since I wrote the visitor stuff.
I'd actually like to see my generic sql code be used to represent
entitymodel, then add sql-sql conversion code. I have an xslt that
can read *all* entitymodel.xml and convert it to entitymodel.sql, or
entitymodel.java. I used the former to verify that my sql parsing was
featureful enough.
You lost me. How will this look when it is finished? Will the entity
model XML files be replaced with SQL files?
From my perspective, the entity engine implementation seems a bit
tangled, and I was trying to come up with a strategy to simplify things.
It's not too bad, imho; just has some issues with view abstraction
that can't be currently represented. It's getting much closer to not
having to do raw sql anymore thru jdbc.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On May 29, 2012, at 6:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote: Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished? Jacques branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528 Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we might want to implement in the branch. Thanks Adam; do we really need a branch for this? Jacopo
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we might
want to implement in the branch.
Indeed, I did not thought there were so much pending already
Jacques
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On May 29, 2012, at 6:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote: Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished? Jacques branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528 Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we might want to implement in the branch. Thanks Adam; do we really need a branch for this? Jacopo I suggested a branch to avoid possible pitfalls during implementation of the new sql stuff wich is a WIP. Then adam collected all more or les related pending issues Jacques
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 05/25/2012 01:22 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the
end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the reverse
cache clearing issues.
branches/improved-entityengine-features-20120528
Also see 1343540, which adds a README that has some things that we might
want to implement in the branch.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
May be doing a little example code that shows how it works and the
performance impact can help developers with implementation in various areas.
Regards,
Pierre
2012/5/25 Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/24/2012 08:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal
documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to
Adam...
About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*?
Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in
ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read
http://markmail.org/message/**lidw73cuzyfr6cichttp://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic
What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*?
From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into
OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the
entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it
could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take
SQL statements - like Jasper Reports.
You can also parse *raw* where clauses.
==
import org.ofbiz.sql.Parser;
import org.ofbiz.entity.sql.**EntityPlanner;
String sqlConditionString = contactMechId = ?contactMechId;
def sqlPlanner = new EntityPlanner();
def reader = new StringReader(sqlCondition);
def sqlCondition = new Parser(reader).**EntityCondition();
while (true) {
def condition = sqlPlanner.**getConditionPlanner().parse(**
sqlCondition,
[contactMechId: '1']);
delegator.findList(entityName, condition, )
}
==
I suppose I should place some of that in a util class(SQLUtil comes to
mind, it was never finished).
I support (), and, or, in, between, it's rather complete.
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql stuff
used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an original
requestor for something that parsed sql into EntityCondition. I took his
suggestion, but went further, to allow CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz. As
I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java code doing
nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm guessing
because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single SQL
query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather efficient. So
making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the reverse
cache clearing issues.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/25/2012 12:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an
original requestor for something that parsed sql into
EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz.
As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java
code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single
SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I still
did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Ok, I suppose. This weekend I'll create such a branch to
fix/improve the view system. This will also attempt to fix the reverse
cache clearing issues.
Count me on it... if I can help you...
Jacques
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to Adam... About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*? Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read http://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*? From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take SQL statements - like Jasper Reports. -Adrian
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 05/24/2012 08:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal
documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to
Adam...
About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*?
Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in
ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read
http://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic
What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*?
From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into
OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the
entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it
could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take
SQL statements - like Jasper Reports.
You can also parse *raw* where clauses.
==
import org.ofbiz.sql.Parser;
import org.ofbiz.entity.sql.EntityPlanner;
String sqlConditionString = contactMechId = ?contactMechId;
def sqlPlanner = new EntityPlanner();
def reader = new StringReader(sqlCondition);
def sqlCondition = new Parser(reader).EntityCondition();
while (true) {
def condition = sqlPlanner.getConditionPlanner().parse(sqlCondition,
[contactMechId: '1']);
delegator.findList(entityName, condition, )
}
==
I suppose I should place some of that in a util class(SQLUtil comes to
mind, it was never finished).
I support (), and, or, in, between, it's rather complete.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/24/2012 08:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal
documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to
Adam...
About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*?
Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in
ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read
http://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic
What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*?
From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into
OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the
entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it
could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take
SQL statements - like Jasper Reports.
You can also parse *raw* where clauses.
==
import org.ofbiz.sql.Parser;
import org.ofbiz.entity.sql.EntityPlanner;
String sqlConditionString = contactMechId = ?contactMechId;
def sqlPlanner = new EntityPlanner();
def reader = new StringReader(sqlCondition);
def sqlCondition = new Parser(reader).EntityCondition();
while (true) {
def condition = sqlPlanner.getConditionPlanner().parse(sqlCondition,
[contactMechId: '1']);
delegator.findList(entityName, condition, )
}
==
I suppose I should place some of that in a util class(SQLUtil comes to
mind, it was never finished).
I support (), and, or, in, between, it's rather complete.
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
Thanks Adrian Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to Adam... About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*? Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read http://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*? From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take SQL statements - like Jasper Reports. -Adrian
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/24/2012 08:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal
documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to
Adam...
About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*?
Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in
ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read
http://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic
What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*?
From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into
OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the
entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it
could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take
SQL statements - like Jasper Reports.
You can also parse *raw* where clauses.
==
import org.ofbiz.sql.Parser;
import org.ofbiz.entity.sql.EntityPlanner;
String sqlConditionString = contactMechId = ?contactMechId;
def sqlPlanner = new EntityPlanner();
def reader = new StringReader(sqlCondition);
def sqlCondition = new Parser(reader).EntityCondition();
while (true) {
def condition = sqlPlanner.getConditionPlanner().parse(sqlCondition,
[contactMechId: '1']);
delegator.findList(entityName, condition, )
}
==
I suppose I should place some of that in a util class(SQLUtil comes to
mind, it was never finished).
I support (), and, or, in, between, it's rather complete.
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch until this
is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
Jacques
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/24/2012 08:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal
documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to
Adam...
About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*?
Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in
ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read
http://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic
What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*?
From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into
OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the
entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it
could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take
SQL statements - like Jasper Reports.
You can also parse *raw* where clauses.
==
import org.ofbiz.sql.Parser;
import org.ofbiz.entity.sql.EntityPlanner;
String sqlConditionString = contactMechId = ?contactMechId;
def sqlPlanner = new EntityPlanner();
def reader = new StringReader(sqlCondition);
def sqlCondition = new Parser(reader).EntityCondition();
while (true) {
def condition = sqlPlanner.getConditionPlanner().parse(sqlCondition,
[contactMechId: '1']);
delegator.findList(entityName, condition, )
}
==
I suppose I should place some of that in a util class(SQLUtil comes to
mind, it was never finished).
I support (), and, or, in, between, it's rather complete.
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql
stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was an original
requestor for something that parsed sql into EntityCondition. I took
his suggestion, but went further, to allow CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz. As
I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed java code
doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm
guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how people actually think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL
syntax, which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single SQL
query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather efficient. So
making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/24/2012 08:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal
documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to
Adam...
About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*?
Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in
ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read
http://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic
What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*?
From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into
OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the
entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it
could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take
SQL statements - like Jasper Reports.
You can also parse *raw* where clauses.
==
import org.ofbiz.sql.Parser;
import org.ofbiz.entity.sql.EntityPlanner;
String sqlConditionString = contactMechId = ?contactMechId;
def sqlPlanner = new EntityPlanner();
def reader = new StringReader(sqlCondition);
def sqlCondition = new Parser(reader).EntityCondition();
while (true) {
def condition = sqlPlanner.getConditionPlanner().parse(sqlCondition,
[contactMechId: '1']);
delegator.findList(entityName, condition, )
}
==
I suppose I should place some of that in a util class(SQLUtil comes to
mind, it was never finished).
I support (), and, or, in, between, it's rather complete.
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was
an original requestor for something that parsed sql into EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz. As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've noticed
java code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm guessing because view-xml is verbose and not how
people actually think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL syntax,
which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I still did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
Re: Slim-down continue [was Re: svn commit: r1340414 - ...]
From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 04:05 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 05/24/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/24/2012 08:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Quick questions (seems that there is a lack of internal
documentation to say the least), there are not only addressed to
Adam...
About javacc dependency do we really need it *OOTB*?
Can't we use rather externally maintained ant targets like in
ant-contrib? For instance pleaser read
http://markmail.org/message/lidw73cuzyfr6cic
What is framework\sql used for *OOTB*?
From what I understand, the sql component parses SQL statements into
OFBiz entity conditions, and then executes the statement using the
entity engine. I don't think it is used OOTB for anything, but it
could be useful for integration with third-party libraries that take
SQL statements - like Jasper Reports.
You can also parse *raw* where clauses.
==
import org.ofbiz.sql.Parser;
import org.ofbiz.entity.sql.EntityPlanner;
String sqlConditionString = contactMechId = ?contactMechId;
def sqlPlanner = new EntityPlanner();
def reader = new StringReader(sqlCondition);
def sqlCondition = new Parser(reader).EntityCondition();
while (true) {
def condition = sqlPlanner.getConditionPlanner().parse(sqlCondition,
[contactMechId: '1']);
delegator.findList(entityName, condition, )
}
==
I suppose I should place some of that in a util class(SQLUtil comes to
mind, it was never finished).
I support (), and, or, in, between, it's rather complete.
The idea was that you would parse the sqlCondition once, in a static
{} block somewhere, then at runtime, just build that map. This
builds-upon the map/list idea inherent in ofbiz.
I also had plans that you could store sql strings into a properties
file somewhere, so that they could possibly be changed by the end-user
without having to recompile.
I need to revisit the SELECT a.partyId, b.* EXCLUDE(partyId) FROM
Party a LEFT JOIN PartyContactMech b USING (partyId), now that ofbiz
better supports conditions on the join clauses, esp. when combining
views into other views.
Thanks for the explanation,
So should we not rather create a Jira with all the needed in a patch
until this is finished?
Or maybe a branch would be easier?
Still with the slim-down idea in mind and as objective.
I like the slimdown, but tbh, I would like to see the framework/sql stuff used more than it is(0 right now). Andrew Zeneski was
an original requestor for something that parsed sql into EntityCondition. I took his suggestion, but went further, to allow
CREATE VIEW AS SELECT to work.
I've noticed that there aren't that many view definitions in ofbiz. As I've been deprecating all this code recently, I've
noticed java code doing nested loop kinda-stuff, instead of just doing a view. I'm guessing because view-xml is verbose and not
how people actually think.
However, with what I committed, you can define the view using a SQL syntax,
which is then backed by a DynamicViewEntity.
I've seen rather impressive speedups just rewriting code to a single SQL query, instead of java loops; the database can be rather
efficient. So making view writing simpler is a laudable goal.
Great, but still, why not a branch as long as it's not finished?
Also something which I think is pretty neat in the principle (I still did not review the code) and would speed up views:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4041
Jacques
BTW another stuff that could be part of this branch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3575
Jacques
