On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 16:27 +0100, Vivien Malerba wrote: > On 3/1/07, Armin Burgmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vivien Malerba wrote: > > > However I doubt it will be very usefull: the data returned from a > > > SELECT command can now be edited (in most if not all the cases since > > > the provider's own implementations of the returned data model inherits > > > GdaDataModelHash) but it won't actually write back the modifications > > > to the database for the simple reason that in most cases it won't know > > > what to write, so the modified data cannot be used (except in some are > > > cases). > > > > I am fully aware of this (although other providers seem to have code to > > write data back to the database, but I have not tested it). > > I'm aware of that feature and I don't like it as it's not clear when a > returned data model is updatable and when it's not. However it could > be improved as the GdaDataModel interface has a i_get_attributes_at() > virtual method which allows actual implementations to return the > "writability" of a specific value (which is used extensively in the > GdaDataModelQuery object). So a good work would be to update the > various providers' GdaDataModel implementations to return very > accurate values for this method. > > > > > Thing is that the GnomeDbGrid (and probably the form, too) already allow > > modifications to the data even without this patch (this actually was why > > I thought it should work), but fails when hitting the commit button. > > Perhaps, an easier and more correct solution is to override is_updatable > > in GdaSqliteRecordset and/or setting the read-only property to TRUE, so > > that the GnomeDbGrid does just not allow editing the data. > > Yes, or even better implement correctly the i_get_attributes_at() > virtual method. > > > > > > What I believe is better is to create a GdaDataModelQuery data model > > > for which you'll give a SELECT query, and optionnally INSERT, UPDATE > > > or DELETE queries so it knows how to actually write the data you > > > modify back to the database. > > > > This technique is already used in the more advanced examples. I just > > want to show something working with libgnomedb with as less code as > > possible.
Vivien, I'm not following the details of this much, but could you add something to the bug report, please. If possible, could you accept or reject the current patch? http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413258 -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
