db-ddlutils-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel López <D.Lo...@uib.es>
Subject Re: Additions to generated XML
Date Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:57:36 GMT

After some comments on this list, I noticed that DDLUtils is based 
currently on Java 1.3, so my patch would not work as I was thinking the 
base was 1.4 and String.matches(regexp) was not present in Java 1.3.

So, I can add the patch as attachemnt to the JIRA issue or wait until 
DDLUtils is upgraded to Java 1.4 and then check if there are any changes 
that need to be done to the patch.

How would you like it?

Thomas Dudziak escribió:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Daniel López <D.Lopez@uib.es> wrote:
>>  I added initial support for the filtering of "tables" (quoted as they
>>  can be tables, views or other table types). I simply added a new
>>  parameter to the DatabaseToDdlTask and passed the parameter until it
>>  reaches the JDBCModelReader, where the filter is applied. Null or ""
>>  string means all the tables are processed.
>>  I was not sure if we would want to use a  filter when altering the
>>  tables, so I simply passed a null in all the calls that read the model
>>  to later alter it.
>>  I used "tableTypes" parameter as model and followed more or less the
>>  same conventions. That means I also did not "log" anywhere the filter
>>  value... I guess having it explicitely written in the ant task might be
>>  good enough, even though spitting out the filter being used in debug
>>  mode might be useful, in case some people pass the filter value as
>>  property or can read just the output and not the task configuration.
>>  Before adding it to the JIRA issue, I'm sending it to verify the patch
>>  format is ok with you. I created it with the Eclipse, Team -> create
>>  patch utility.
> Thanks for your work ! The patch format looks fine, the Eclipse patch
> function creates unified diff patches which are perfect.
>>  I did some tests with a DB of mine and everything works as expected, are
>>  there any "formal" tests you use for such contributions? The patch is
>>  quite simple, but I'd hate to break other parts ;).
> It depends. There are no formal or unit tests for Ant tasks, but if it
> also contains library (API) functionality, then a few unit tests can't
> hurt :-)
> cheers,
> Tom

View raw message