On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:46 AM, LacaK la...@zoznam.sk wrote:
TSQLConnection.GetTableNames(List: TStrings; SchemaName : String; Options :
TSchemaOptions);
Which IMO fits better in existing frame.
Using this method, to take all tables, from all schemas, the user
would need to run multiples
Hi Daniel,
If I understand correctly, when you will use new GetObjectNames then you
must itterate throught returned collection to obtain schema names +
object names (f.e. table names).
IMO very similar result you can get also with existing implementation,
when you use:
with SQLQuery1 do
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:01 AM, LacaK la...@zoznam.sk wrote:
IMO very similar result you can get also with existing implementation, when
you use:
Yes, this is the way GetDBInfo do, but it's not public, and never
return schema. What I did was to copy and modify this method.
I have sent a patch:
Daniel Gaspary wrote / napísal(a):
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:01 AM, LacaK la...@zoznam.sk wrote:
IMO very similar result you can get also with existing implementation, when
you use:
Yes, this is the way GetDBInfo do, but it's not public, and never
return schema.
Code which I have
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, LacaK wrote:
Daniel Gaspary wrote / napísal(a):
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:01 AM, LacaK la...@zoznam.sk wrote:
IMO very similar result you can get also with existing implementation, when
you use:
Yes, this is the way GetDBInfo do, but it's not public, and never
return
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:27 AM, LacaK la...@zoznam.sk wrote:
(for SQLConnection which support schemas. I have used public method
SetSchemaInfo not GetDBInfo)
It's not public in SqlConnection, it's public in SqlQuery.
Anyway, I don't see why avoid a dedicated method to do this instead of
3
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
While this is correct, the collection approach is much easier to use:
With the metadataset, you must know which fields exist and type them
correctly: FieldByName('XYZ').AsString
With collections, the IDE
Michael Van Canneyt wrote / napísal(a):
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, LacaK wrote:
Daniel Gaspary wrote / napísal(a):
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:01 AM, LacaK la...@zoznam.sk wrote:
IMO very similar result you can get also with existing
implementation, when
you use:
Yes, this is the way
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Daniel Gaspary wrote:
Hi.
In December 2012, this[1] thread has brought some ideas about
Database metadata, in special the retrieving of Schema names.
This[2] wiki page summarizes what was discussed. Some further
conclusion after that thread?
I agree that using
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
Make this a TCollection/TCollectionItem. Generics are not used in the DB
units, and they should not be used for consistency.
But I was thinking that TSqlObjectIdenfier could be reused at Data
Dictionary Units. As
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Daniel Gaspary wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
Make this a TCollection/TCollectionItem. Generics are not used in the DB
units, and they should not be used for consistency.
But I was thinking that
2014-06-01 11:18 GMT-03:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Daniel Gaspary wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
Make this a TCollection/TCollectionItem. Generics are not used in the DB
units, and they should
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
But I was thinking that TSqlObjectIdenfier could be reused at Data
Dictionary Units. As a TCollectionItem could be harder to reuse, as it
will depend of the existence of a TCollection.
I don't understand what
An Issue was created with the patch:
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=26254
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Daniel Gaspary dgasp...@gmail.com wrote:
I see no problem. It was just a wrong impression that I had about
TCollectionItem.
___
Hi.
In December 2012, this[1] thread has brought some ideas about
Database metadata, in special the retrieving of Schema names.
This[2] wiki page summarizes what was discussed. Some further
conclusion after that thread?
I agree that using Information schema, wherever is supported, is
15 matches
Mail list logo
