Re: Next release (was Re: New Release)

[Vivien Malerba <malerba gears linuxave net>]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:39:24PM +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> 
> > > 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)

Yes, a widget and a bonobo control.

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

Ok, what I will do then is finish it in gASQL since it's almost finished,
then you all can test it and tell me how you feel about it, because it is more
complex (and more powerfull I think) than what can be found for example
in MS access or some other projects. 

> > > * 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?

Maybe using only XML queries would be better since Gerhard has started to
work on it in XML queries, and it would avoid having to implement twice
the same things.

> 
> > > 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.
> 

Ok, I will do it.

>  
> > > * 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?

yes, the e-table one.

> 
> cheers

Vivien