Hi all, I have been testing with MySQL and the only problem I found was that MySQL is case-sensitive. So I had to remove all to uppercase calls.
And something else. For my part Benjamin has proven his commitment to the project. Maybe we can start a vote to let him in? Cheers, Francis On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Rainer Döbele <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > > > finally I have found some time to look at the code generator. > > > > This time I decided to test with Microsoft SQL Server and I ran straight into > a problem: > > Unlike the Oracle driver I had before, I had to supply the schema name with > the catalog parameter of DatabaseMetaData.getTables(). > > Otherwise it wouldn't find the tables. > > Looks like DatabaseMetaData.getTables() behaves very database specific. > > Any idea how we can improve this? > > > > Another issue is that the driver may create a sequence table to handle > sequences. > > There should be a way to ignore this sequence table. > > I also had a problem with some character case issues on the column name. > > This should work now. > > > > Apart from that the general class layout looks good. > > I only felt the desire to rename the CodeGen class to CodeGenWriter. > > IMO this makes more sense. Hope nobody minds. > > > > The most important thing missing are the relations. > > I think they should be added next. > > > > And I found that we should remove a few things from the generated database > class. > > The two generic methods are not specific to the database supplied an could go > directly in DBDatabase. > > I am however not sure, whether I really recommend to work this way. > > This is more like traditional ORM's handle it and it breaks our paradigm - > although it is not wrong. > > > > And the static accessor should go as well. We cannot decide whether someone > wants one or multiple instances and how they should be accessed. > > It is even likely that someone wants to derived a class from the generated > database class in order to be able to generate the classes again without > loosing his modifications. > > So if nobody objects I will remove this the next time. > > > > Long time since we have last heard anything of Thomas Poling. > > Maybe he has still not subscribed to empire-db-dev that why I put him on CC. > > Thomas if you read this - give us a sign. > > > > Benjamin IMO you have done a good job so far. > > I was surprised that splitting the process up in a parser and a writer by > only using a DBDatabase object has not been more difficult (or was it?). > > And thanks Francis for checking everything in and fixing those "findbugs". > > > > So how about doing the relations next? > > Benjamin are you up for that? > > > > Regards > > Rainer > > > > -- http://www.somatik.be Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
