On 2 Jul 2012, at 18:20, Jay A. Kreibich wrote:
> The idea of using a plugin system to expand database functionality
> seems to fit well with the SQLite way of getting things done.
> Functions, collations, and virtual tables are already done in a
> similar way. Extending that to types seems like a natural thing.
Indeed.
> You can, of course, use a user-defined function that just converts a
> string to a BLOB of some type. As long as you use the encoder function
> for inputs and the decoder for all outputs, you should be good.
Functionally, although involving more overhead, a collation
is enough. The combination of encoder and decoder obviates
repeated references to the collation function for ORDER BY,
BETWEEN, and so on.
> That
> starts to get deep into your SQL, however. The ability to define
> native types is similar in complexity to adding user-defined
> functions.
>
> Just a thought. Any opinions?
/Niall
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
