db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bryan Pendleton (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-2397) Dropping SQL objects could be improved by reducing the number of classes required.
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:20:50 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2397?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12477800
] 

Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-2397:
----------------------------------------

This sounds like a great idea. I struggled with several instances of this problem during ALTER
TABLE testing.

> Dropping SQL objects could be improved by reducing the number of classes required.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-2397
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2397
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: SQL
>            Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
>         Assigned To: Daniel John Debrunner
>
> The current flow for a DROP statement, such as a DROP FUNCTION is roughly as follows:
>   Compile time:
>              c1) find the TupleDescriptor for the object to verify it exists (e.g. AliasDescriptor,
TriggerDescriptor)
>              c2) create an instance of a type specific ConstantAction (e.g. DropAliasConstantAction),
information
>                    is passed into the ConstantAction to allow it to re-create the TupleDescriptor,
but doesn't pass the actual TupleDescriptor.
>                    (E.g. the schema name, alias type and routine name is passed to the
DropAliasConstantAction)
>     Execute time (which may be sometime later than compile time) calls executeConstantAction
on the object specific ConstantAction
>              e1) execute verify a matching object exists by finding a matching TupleDescriptor
>              e2) drop the object
> This could be simplified by utilizing the polymorphic nature of TupleDescriptors. Then
all the DropXXXConstantActions could be replaced with
> a single DropDescriptorConstantAction that was created with a TupleDescriptor at compile
time.  Two new abstract methods would be added to
> TupleDescriptor, getCurrent() and drop().
> Then the execute steps would be:
>       en1) Get the current TupleDescriptor using the getCurrent() method of the Tupledescriptor
passed in at compile time.
>                 This method may return the same object, a different instance that refers
to the same SQL object or an instance
>                 that refers to a different SQL object of the same name.
>                     descriptor = descriptor.getCurrent()
>     en2) Drop the descriptor.
>                    descriptor.drop().
> Thus the checking and drop code would move from the SQL object specific ConstantActions
into the SQL object specific TupleDescriptors and
> then all of the DropXXXConstantActions classes would be replaced with a single generic
one. Thus removing around six classes.
> Grant/revoke changes has almost started this approach, where some instances of TupleDescriptor
(e.g. ViewDescriptor) and the matching constant action 
> to drop an item share code.  This alerted me to the pattern that is really required,
that of a drop() method in TupleDescriptor.
> I'll have a patch sometime over the weekend that shows an incremental approach for a
couple of SQL objects.
>    

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message