>> I think all DB specifics should go into DB adapters. We need to add
>methods
>> like getIntType() to DB interface, or maybe getSQLType(Class class) ?
>
>I'm not sure that I agree with this. The adapters are meant to provide
>"run-time" db features, and I think the generation stuff should be kept
>separate.
Generation is also "running" ;-)
Those methods may also be helpful elswhere, for example to create tables on
the fly (know that's a bad example, but there must be better uses...)
>As such the XML mapping will be pretty clean and easy to
>understand.
I also think config files are useful when you may need to change something.
In this case once you've configured adapter the right way you don't want to
change it anymore. Another advantage is that if you provide the most common
type name in DB.java you'll only need to override it for those few dbs which
name it differently...
>Also easier to extend to other db's. But I'm certainly not
>fundamentally against adding it to the adapters!
>
>Can we get some more thoughts from other ppl on this?
Would be nice ;-)
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
