Re: [gnome-db] Introspection - DataModel structures

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 09:13 +0200, Vivien wrote:
> [...]
> >> > it should be GDA_VALUE_TYPE_TYPE, if the docs say _STRING, it's a bug
> >> > there. AFAIK, all providers use the _TYPE one.
> >>
> >> No, it's not a bug. The column returns the type of the corresponding
> >> field
> >> as understood by the DBMS, which is not the GDA type. The corresponding
> >> GDA type, for a DBMS data type is given by the SCHEMA_TYPES schema.
> >>
> >> For example Postgres has a data type for storing IP adresses and the
> >> returned data type is 'cidr' for such fields; the corresponding GDA type
> >> is STRING.
> >>
> >> It is necessary to keep that distinction for Mergeant at least (because
> >> of
> >> the plugin system which is really usefull only if the DBMS type is
> >> known).
> >>
> >> If you need to have the GDA type, then either you first get the
> >> SCHEMA_TYPES schema and keep a correspondance table, or you can use
> >> libmergeant which does it, or a new column could be added to the
> >> SCHEMA_FIELDS schema to return the GDA type.
> >>
> > I guess this would be a good solution, thus avoiding the need for
> > getting the types schema.
> >
> > Although, even easier might be to have a type_to_gda virtual method on
> > the providers. What do you think?
> >
> 
> Yes, and implementing both (a new column to SCHEMA_FIELDS and a new
> type_to_gda virtual method) would be the best. Anyway, the providers
> should keep a correspondance between the DBMS data types and the gda types
> (postgres already does it), so there should not be any performance impact.
> 
we are going, as we talked, to follow GNOME releases, so we are going to
freeze the API very soon, so please, could you make sure all the API
changes are committed ASAP?

cheers