I am fine with pretty much anything that would improve our current db scripting process, but in truth, I'm not sure that I see much of a difference between this new method and the old one.
-- Allen On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 07:36, Anil Gangolli wrote: > +1 Big Yes! I had been suggesting Velocity-based generation of these > too, and was just waiting for a good time to push this. I'm not as > confident in the use of the Texen task to drive it, but that's an > excellent start and it may suffice. I'd like to encourage the use of > more velocity-like property names and remember that macros are also at > our disposal, which is a good way to embed more complex conditionals and > entirely different expansions for some statements. This is > fundamentally a good move. Thanks Dave. > > > --a. > > > > Matt Raible wrote: > > >I haven't been involved with generating any of the database scripts - > >but I believe it can be simplified, and this looks like a good way to > >do it. > > > >+1 > > > >Matt > > > >On 12/5/05, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Fixing that PostgreSQL upgrade problem was extremely painful with our > >>text-replace based database script generation technique. Take a look at > >>the stuff I committed yesterday if you don't believe me. So after I > >>finished the work, I replaced the text-replace stuff with a much more > >>powerful and flexible generator: Velocity (driven by the Texen task). > >>I've got code ready to commit. The proposal is here: > >> > >>http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp? > >>page=Proposal_VelocityGeneratedDatabaseScripts > >> > >>DIFF says the scripts I'm generating with the new technique are > >>identical to the old scripts. I'd like to commit this stuff today in > >>the trunk. No matter how you feel about generating database scripts > >>(I'm for it), you have to admit that this is a big improvement over > >>text-replace. > >> > >>Any objections to this proposal? > >> > >>- Dave > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >
