db-torque-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Fischer <tfisc...@apache.org>
Subject RE: package attribute on table?
Date Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:19:09 GMT

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Greg Monroe wrote:

> I have to say I'm -0.5 or so on this.  But this is
> an initial gut feel based on my experiences of
> recently fixing a lot of package related problems
> in the templates and a memory of a lot of similar
> problems/issues that occure with each new version.
> IMHO, this is because it is VERY difficult to test
> all the existing combinations of build properties
> prior to release.  I'm just not sure that this
> feature would be used enough to justify the
> effort to maintain it.

Hm, I'm not that afraid of the testing. If the import does not work we'll 
get a compile error straight away, which should be easily catched by the 
test project. At least more easy than the wrong constants you caught.

> That said, I think the right solution would be
> to make the external schema stuff work right.
> The only reason I can see for not having the
> external foreigns supported is that there is
> no guarentee that they are in the same DB
> schema or even server.  E.g., users info on
> one server/schema and app info on an other.

>From the commit message for the external-schema stuff, the idea 
was to use external-schema for addons which should not affect the 
"core" code, so it seems that not changing the core classes was 
intentional. Also, I do not think that allowing different packages in
different schema files is more difficult than having different packages in 
one schema file.

I have not tried it, but I'd guess having a schema referenced by 
external-schema on a different db than the referencing schema would not 
work at all (for you can have foreign keys from the external-schema to 
the original schema), so personally I do not think that this must be 
considered. The only case where this would work is if there is no 
connection between the two schemata, but then the external-schma reference 
would be useless as well.

I can understand the concern about maintainability. But so far I have not 
seen any patch, so I do not know how complicated it gets. I'd agree that 
if it is not maintainable we should not add the feature, we can discuss 
that when a patch is available.

Greg, is this suggestion ok with you ?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message