Re: [gnome-db] Data Types translations.

[Bas Driessen <bas driessen xobas com>]

On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 17:15 +0200, Vivien Malerba wrote:
> On 8/30/06, Bas Driessen <bas driessen xobas com> wrote:
> >
> >  On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 15:36 +0200, Vivien Malerba wrote:
> >  On 8/30/06, Bas Driessen <bas driessen xobas com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >
> >  >
> >  > Further to the discussion regarding the creation of the table. There is
> > the > Path: /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_TYPE. Here a complete type must be set. For >
> > postgresql that is varchar(30) for instance. As mentioned before I would >
> > like to see this part more provider independent. Perhaps we can reach some >
> > sort of a compromise. First I tell you what I would like to see: > >
> > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_GTYPE > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE >
> > > example values: > GDA_TYPE_NUMERIC > 10 > 2 > > This then will be
> > translated by the postgresql provider for instance to > numeric(10,2). > >
> > To provide both options to the user, we can say that if >
> > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_TYPE (the current situation), this overrules any >
> > situation. If it is not set, the user should set > > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_GTYPE
> > > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE (if applicable) > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE (if
> > applicable) > > Then for the various providers we can make this into
> > something that works > for the data provider. > I agree on having the
> > /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE and /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE as this makes things more
> > provider independant. However I prefer to stay with a /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_TYPE
> > because it's closer to what a user can easily fill-in and it's easy for a
> > programmer (using
> > gda_server_provider_get_default_dbms_type()) to convert
> > from a GType to a DBMS type. It also makes it possible to check and take
> > actions when the provider doesn't support a particular GType before trying
> > to execute the action. So I propose to have /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_TYPE
> > (required) /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE (optional) /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE
> > (optional) Is it Ok for you? If so, can you make the modifications in the
> > xml.in files and in the -ddl.c files for some or all of the providers?
> >  Ok with me, but if you bring back everything to just COLUMN_TYPE (as
> > opposed to also have COLUMN_GTYPE), how would you deal with the situation if
> > a user sets the values as follows:
> >
> >  numeric(10,5) (rather than GDA_TYPE_NUMERIC)
> >  10
> >  5
> >
> >  In this case we should ignore the size and the scale, since
> > numeric(10,5)(10,5) is rubbish of course. What is the best approach to deal
> > with this you reckon?
>
> This is a potential problem and whatever we end up doing, the user
> will always have the responsibility to avoid entering stupid things
> (my point is that we can't make something completely water-proof).
>
> So I suppose in this case we should just notice that there are
> parenthesis and then ignore the /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SIZE and
> /FIELDS_A/@COLUMN_SCALE values, just as we should ignore them when the
> data type does not support size and scale attributes.
>
> >
> >  I am more than happy to make the changes for the postgresql and mysql
> > providers. Once I have everything stable/working again, I want/have to look
> > into the Oracle provider as well. I need to bring that to the same level in
> > libgda as mysql and postgresql (including recordset etc etc).
>
> Ok, great!
>
> BTW: do you have/want a gmail account so it is possible to do some chat?

OK Vivien will start working on the SIZE/SCALE this weekend.

Do not have gmail as I don't want to place my private stuff on 3rd party servers. Very off-topic, but why do I need gmail for a chat? Don't we have IRC channels for that and SIP protocol for voice etc?