I moved now the SimpleTableDefParser into core. That's actually a nice,
separate feature then. I added this story about it also: METAMODEL-41.


2014-03-13 1:01 GMT+01:00 Henry Saputra <[email protected]>:

> Yeah generic parser should be useful. And it should injectable through
> the Spring context for extension/ override I suppose.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Kasper Sørensen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What I mean is that you could easily think of other similar frameworks to
> > Spring, or just other scenarios in general, where it would also be useful
> > to externalize table defs. For instance in DataCleaner we have a
> ridiculous
> > XML format for it which is waaaay verbose. We could basically throw out a
> > few pages of XML in favor or a more concise (although interpreted, so
> less
> > type-safe) String element in our XML files.
> >
> >
> > 2014-03-05 19:19 GMT+01:00 Henry Saputra <[email protected]>:
> >
> >> Sorry for the late reply.
> >>
> >> I don't think we need to generalize the table def parser for now
> >> because the format of the table definition pretty much fixed.
> >>
> >> But like any framework code, anything that could be injected to
> >> override default behavior is always nice. That is why we added Spring
> >> support at the first place =)
> >>
> >>
> >> - Henry
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Kasper Sørensen
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > For the Spring module I needed a way for the user to provide a
> >> > SimpleTableDef object via an externalizable string. So I ended up
> >> building
> >> > a small parser that would take simple table definitions of this form:
> >> >
> >> > person (
> >> >>   id INTEGER,
> >> >>   name VARCHAR,
> >> >>   birthdate DATE
> >> >> );
> >> >> company (
> >> >>   id BIGINT,
> >> >>   name VARCHAR,
> >> >>   logo BINARY
> >> >> );
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The parser is right now put directly in the DataContextFactoryBean,
> but
> >> can
> >> > easily be refactored into a separate parser class...
> >> >
> >> > Do you guys agree that would be a better way forward to make this a
> >> general
> >> > SimpleTableDef parser? I'm thinking that such a parser could have a
> >> general
> >> > purpose and would also benefit in terms of maintenance to be put in
> the
> >> > core module.
> >> >
> >> > Background: SimpleTableDefs are often used in schemaless stores like
> the
> >> > MongoDB, CouchDB or HBase stores. Here it serves as a guide from the
> user
> >> > to model the store.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Kasper
> >>
>

Reply via email to