Re: [gnome-db] SqlBuilder feedback

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

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.

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