Re: SQL Plugin for DIA

[Nathan Stitt <nate allmed net>]

"Andrew S . Halper" <ashalper acm org> writes:

> This description alludes to a new Dia object.  The scope of plug-ins is limited
> and they have no binding to a particular Dia "sheet", thus any diagram they
> encounter could potentially be fraught with objects they are not interested in. 
> We must await The UrShape!

Yes, I meant a new object, not plugin.  The UrShape does appears to
solve the problem of finding connection points and such.  Thinking
about this some more, I think it would be best to wait for their
completion before createing a new object. Which is fine as I've
already gotten rather side tracked from the project I'm supposed to be
working on by hacking up the sql plugin :) It was a nice diversion
though, so perhaps I can return to it once the UrShape's are done.

Now that I've been laying out some real tables with the plugin, I find
I'm also going to have to figure out a way to drop and create postgres
sequences for table id columns.  I'm probably going to attempt to put
them in the Templates tab of the Class properties sometime in the next
few days.  Also, I need a way to perform arbitrary sql statements at
the end of the output.  I'm thinking of putting the contents of UML
Notes in the bottom of the sql script that's created.

I'll drop you a line when I get these few things done.

> Yes, it is hackish.  I knew that when I wrote it.  I thought better hack than
> non-existent.  There were/are some programs around for converting Dia files into
> database schemata, but I was conditioned to do it directly from the application,
> and so I wrote the plug-in.  Also I'd really like to run Linux on my machine at
> work, and ERwin/Notes are the last things I need to replace.

Not that there's anything wrong with hackishness (is this even a
word?)  I'm very happy with the work you did, as it gave me a good
example to build on (and create something even more hackish).  I also
looked at some of the perl scripts and such that are out there, but
this method seems much more cleaner.  I think most people probably
just have an adversion to codeing in c.


Nathan