On 9 Dec 2004, at 17:52, Martin Cooper wrote:
<snip>
commons-sql must IMHO focus better. Should it be just the "single set of
beans" as mentioned at the top page of the project? Or an all enclosing
"XML -> SQL and back" mapper? Then you definitely will touch the realm
of other "XML -> something" mappers. And there are already a lot of
these out there.
If you really insist on moving commons-sql to Apache DB in its current state, then I would beg you to really think _more_ about the design of your SQL generator than the parents of torque-gen did. torque-gen has huge problems, trying to get stuff like "MySQL, version 4" and "MySQL, version 3" done and struggles from a restrictive XML syntax (using the short cuts for the ID generators was a _HUGE_ mistake).
PMFJI, but wouldn't moving Commons SQL to db@ provide the community with the right environment in which to learn all these things you're talking about, and thereby improve the component immensely?
Rather than require it to improve *before* a move, perhaps we should focus on how such a move would benefit the community *and* the component.
i think maybe martin has something here.
sql hasn't really thrived here in the commons (unlike some other database related components) and may benefit from a move. in some ways, i'm not really sure what moving sql means in practical terms since it's a sandbox component. i suspect that it might be better to talk about building a better sql as a db.apache.org sub-project taking the existing sql codebase as the bit of grit around which the pearl will hopefully grow. (stafano used to describe this kind of thing much better but the basic essence is this: it's best to start a new project with a good community and flawed code.)
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
