Re: gnome-db team

[Rodrigo Moya <rmoya tsai es>]

> > So, I'd like to start defining the config component stuff. The bonobo
> > part is clear, isn't it? We'll code a sample bonobo control which will
> > just include a container widget created by each of the providers' config
> > component. My idea about what the component will do is that it should do
> > whatever you want (and can). That is, the ODBC widget will be just a DSN
> > configurator, as the windows version does, but the oracle provider can,
> > for example, allow the creation of users, databases, ... management of
> > tablespaces, quotas, etc, and any other provider whatever is possible
> > with the underlying database. What do you think?
>
> Hmm... exactly how does the client-lib (aka the MySQL folder I'm
> maintaining) define the interface, although it may be on another machine
> (IIRC the mysql provider would be a component, so it could be on the other
> side of the internet...)? Are we going to use GTK? Glade? Another API?
> Just wanting to know so that I can brush up on it.
>

no, the providers (included the MySQL one) are simple CORBA objects, whose
interface is defined in the IDL files (gda/ directory). Then, we'll have a
bonobo component for each of the providers to act as a configuration control.
Both the providers and the config components, as they are CORBA objects, can
be, as you say, on the other side of the internet.

The client-lib is just a wrapper around the CORBA stuff, so that client apps
(not including providers) are easier to code, and no need to learn CORBA.

>
> > Also, I'd like all of the providers' people to say your opinion about
> > the interface in the servers, the missing schemas (this is very
> > important), .... because as we're starting to have several stable
> > providers, I don't want to add more and more providers if the design
> > does not fit any kind of data source.
>
> Hmmm...How about data providers like ApacheLog and TextFile? (I've been
> toying with the ideas, but won't dare implement them until I'm VERY
> comfortable with the API.) I'm assuming that, for instance, with TextFile,
> I would probably present it to gda as a single table, with just about
> everything being a varchar (ur...string) in the table schema. Does a
> provider have to support everything?
>

No, a provider just has to support what it supports, in fact we've got
several ways to ask the providers for supported features. For example,
MySQL does not support transactions, so the MySQL provider won't do neither
(although I've heard somewhere that it's possible to simulate them, is that
true?)

All kinds of data sources should be supported, in fact text files, LDAP, etc
(I hadn't thougth about ApacheLog, but good point!) are in the TODO list, but
first we should fix any error found in the IDL interface.

>
> Just tossing this out since it sounds
> a major change may be in progress. Can you imagine how useful (read: cool)
> it would be to make a report in gnome-db using a mysql engine, your web
> server logs, and perhaps a CSV file tying them altogether? It sounds like
> some major voodoo to implement it, but hey, I'm in it for the fun. :)
>

Cédric said something about this in a previous mail (I haven't read it yet in
its entirity)