Re: [gnome-db] SqlBuilder feedback

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 18:21 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:04 +0100, Vivien Malerba wrote:
> > 2009/10/25 Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>:
> > > I've looked at the new GdaSqlBuilder API and I have some thoughts.
> > >
> > > Firstly, I think that the IDs are exposed too often. I can see how the
> > > ID could have some use to an application programmer, but it should not
> > > be the main way to use the API.
> > >
> > > At the least, this (pseudo-code) is annoying:
> > >  gda_sql_builder_add_field(builder,
> > >    gda_sql_builder_add_id(builder, 0, "sometable.somefield") );
> > >
> > > This would be nicer:
> > >  gda_sql_builder_add_field(builder, "somefield",
> > > "sometable" (optional))
> > >  would be nicer.
> > >
> > > In subsequent calls, GdaSqlBuilder would use the same ID automatically.
> > >
> > >
> > > The current API gets even more long-winded when dealing with values too,
> > > for UPDATE commands:
> > >  gda_sql_builder_add_field(builder,
> > >    gda_sql_builder_add_id(builder, 0, "sometable.somefield") );
> > >    gda_sql_builder_add_expr(builder, 0, NULL, 123) );
> > >
> > > This would be simpler:
> > >  gda_sql_builder_add_field_value(builder, "somefield",
> > > "sometable" (optional), 123);
> > 
> > Using ID allows the API to be kept to a minimum number of functions,
> > while allowing one to build very complex statements, so I want to keep
> > them as they are, but I agree there is a need to have some more "daily
> > usage" API to have less lines of code. There are 2 ways of doing this:
> > either create some real functions or use macros. Even though I like to
> > keep the number of methods to a minimal, using macros here can lead to
> > difficult debugging times as the macros could get complex, so I
> > propose to add new "higher level" API, starting with:
> 
> I can't imagine why you would ever want to use macros instead of
> functions. That way lies madness.
> 
> > void gda_sql_builder_easy_add_field (GdaSqlBuilder *builder, const
> > gchar *field_table, const gchar *field_name, GType type, ...)
> > and
> > void gda_sql_builder_easy_add_field_value (GdaSqlBuilder *builder,
> > const gchar *field_table, const gchar *field_name, GValue *value)
> 
> I hate the use of "easy" in API names. Just make it easy - you don't
> need to call it easy. That just makes the API look weird and
> inconsistent.
> 
> I would append _id to the existing functions, so, for instance:
>   gda_sql_builder_add_field()
> would become
>   gda_sql_builder_add_field_id()
> and then add real gda_sql_builder_add_field() and
> gda_sql_builder_add_field_value() functions like above, but without
> "easy" in their name.

Thoughts? I don't want to give up on this API. It could be very useful
in glom an in general.


-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com