Re: fixes on gda-oracle-server (fwd) [WatchDog checked]

[Rodrigo Moya <rmoya tsai es>]

>
>
> I would divide the schema information and the create command to different
> methods.
>

Yes, this looks ok, since there is actually a gda_connection_create_recordset
function, which should return a string containing the SQL needed to create a
recordset. So, a similar method could be added for other objects; or even better,
provide a schema constraint for this.

>
> On the other hand I would add a _comments_ field to every entry (not just
> to column entries).
>

Ok!

>
> Question: Should gnome-db become a administration tool for databases?
> You've written about import/export, ownerships of tables and so on. In that case
> we
> should provide much more informations about the objects (but that seems to
> become quite difficult because of the different functionality of the
> RDBMS).
>

Well, gnome-db should provide as more access as possible to the underlying database,
this includes administration tasks. Actually, there is nothing about this, but there
is the gda-manager app, which should act as a database management tool. It should
act like this: a shared lib is provided for each database provider, with a set of
functions known by the gda-mgr. These functions will provide database management
features: create_db, drop_db, add_datafile, ... or something like that. This is the
reason for the "Configurator" entry for each gnome-db data source.

And, yes, as you say, we cannot enter too much into details because of the
differences between RDBMS, so the information we should provide is plain standard
SQL-92 (is this the name?).