Re: Next release (was Re: New Release)

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo ulises openresources com>]

> > The things I've thought about:
> > * XML queries: Gerhard, can you start adding your lib to the libGDA
> > source tree? As soon as they are there, we can start implementing new
> > (awesome) stuff, such as a visual query designer, the
> > export/import stuff, and, most importantly, non-SQL providers, such as
> > LDAP, etc
> 
> Has anyone already started to work with a query designer? Because this
> is what I'm doing right now in gASQL (so maybe then we could make only one
> implementation).
> 

nobody has started, so yes, please, do only one implementation for both
projects. What I was
thinking about was to have it as a widget (GnomeDbQueryDesigner)

And another thing: it should support generation of XML and SQL queries

> > * modifySchema: I'm working right now on rewriting the GnomeDbBrowser
> > widget to allow calls
> > to this function, which, as I explained, will allow for DDL
> > (CREATE/DROP, etc) commands. Apart
> 
> Don't you think it should be done with bonobo controls from each provider?
> as the definition of these objects really is tied to the DBMS,...
> 

having this as Bonobo components is great for visual stuff, but there
may be times when you
want to create database objects from the source code of your program.
And, of course, we need
to have a way of doing so in a non-DBMS-specific way.

well, now that I think, this could be done with XML queries instead of
the schemas. So, what
do you think? have both XML queries and modifySchema, or just XML
queries?

> > from this, the schema support must be enhanced in all the providers,
> > since the only one which
> > is supporting well schemas is the postgres provider
> 
> One nice thing would be to write down (more in detail than what is in the doc)
> what each schema is supposed to return, and see if everyone is happy with it.
> When we have something accepted by all, we can update the docs and update/
> write the implementations.
> I can find some time to start writing what exactely the postgres provider
> answers for each schema and then we can work from that. What do you think?
> 
> The main problems I see is for non DBMS providers to find good mappings
> with the schemas...
>

perfect, please write down what you propose, and we'll discuss it in the
list.

And yes, for non-DBMS providers there will be lots of cases where the
supplied fields are
NULL. So, I think we should also specify which fields must contain data,
such as the object name,
etc, so that client apps can rely on that info, knowing that the other
fields may be NULL.

 
> > * GnomeDbGrid widget: we need a better-looking grid widget
> 
> Maybe use the new tree widget in GAL which looks very promising, no?
> 

tree widget? do you mean the e-table, or a new one that I haven't seen
myself?

cheers