openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick Linskey" <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Database versions
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:24:32 GMT
To finish what I was saying, generally we try to make sure that the
default configuration (what you get when your driver is auto-detected)
is optimized for the latest db version.

-Patrick

On 7/9/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > and IMO the standard definition (like "postgres") should be taken. I would
> > prefer, if the user would be able to specify a more detailed definition like
> > "postgres81" , instead of having to override their own schema (and there are
> > some minor changes between the revisions).
>
> Historically, we've put various compatibility properties into the
> particular dictionary class. Any public fields or setter / getter
> pairs can be accessed from the DBDictionary configuration:
>
>     openjpa.DBDictionary: postgres(supportsSubqueries=false)
>
> for example. We haven't usually done version numbers, since desired
> settings are really normally more of a version range, not a particular
> number. But, I could definitely see a case for something like so:
>
>     openjpa.DBDictionary: postgres(version=8.0)
>
> Then, in the DBDictionary, various behaviors could be toggled based on
> the fact that the person is using a version < 8.1, for example.
>
> Generally
>
> On 7/9/07, Daniel Migowski <dmigowski@ikoffice.de> wrote:
> >
> >  Hello OpenJPA developers,
> >
> >  I fixed some bugs in the Postgresqldatabase definition, and before
> > submitting a patch, i wanted to know how support for different database
> > versions is planned. Should the only be one definition per database or will
> > the future bring definitions like postgres81, postgres80 etc.. I know that
> > the automatic detection of a version is not possible directly from JDBC-URL,
> > and IMO the standard definition (like "postgres") should be taken. I would
> > prefer, if the user would be able to specify a more detailed definition like
> > "postgres81" , instead of having to override their own schema (and there are
> > some minor changes between the revisions).
> >
> >  What you think?
> >
> >  With regards,
> >  Daniel Migowski
> >
> >
> > --
> >  |¯¯|¯¯| IKOffice GmbH Daniel Migowski
> >  | | |/| Mail: dmigowski@ikoffice.de
> >  | | // | Nordstr. 10 Tel.: +49 (441) 21 98 89 52
> >  | | \\ | 26135 Oldenburg Fax.: +49 (441) 21 98 89 55
> >  |__|__|\| http://www.ikoffice.de Mob.: +49 (176) 22 31 20 76
> >
> >  Geschäftsführer: Ingo Kuhlmann, Daniel Migowski
> >  Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 201467
> >  Steuernummer: 64/211/01864
> >
>
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
>


-- 
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907

Mime
View raw message