On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:46:40AM -0600, Christopher Singley wrote:
> failing to quantize the data introduces
> inconsistencies.
Inconsistency between what? between different backends? Are they really
consistent by themselves?
> If I define a DecimalCol as size=10, precision=5, then when I fetch that
> attribute from the database, I really don't want it to have size=20,
> precision=2.
Yes, but there is no harm in having size=20, precision=5.
> I think the class definition should be enforced for each instance.
> Otherwise,
> why bother having these parameters if they are meaningless?
They are passed to the backend.
> Don't we want to be able to use SQLObject to write database-agnostic code?
As far as possible but not further. By using strings to store decimals
we are making a workaround for the backend that doesn't have a decimal
type. But the workaround has a price.
> If
> every other DB engine offers strict guarantees about size/precision,
> shouldn't sqlobject do the same?
They guarantee minimal precision. Quantization in SQLObject makes that
worse, not better.
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
sqlobject-discuss mailing list
sqlobject-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss
