On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Darko Volaric <lists at darko.org> wrote:
> In my case I'm already modifying and maintaining my own version of SQLite. > [...]. The last time I brought these ideas up I was > practically chased off by a mob waving pitchforks and torches. Apparently > almost no-one thinks user defined types is a good idea so there is no point > sharing it. I don't expect anyone to help me maintain the code. FWIW, I think UDTs are a great idea. But also - optional static typing of columns; - checksums of blocks;- - blob two-tier storage (a la Oracle); - native indexing of virtual table; - native JSON support; - etc... Yes, the community, just like the authors, of SQLite have a strong bias against changes and to keep SQLite "lite". And can be brutal in how they say it (or ignore it) when someone rants about his pet-peeves, or try to push forward his wish list (including me above). But remember that SQLite didn't have FKs for a long time. Didn't have CTE. Both of which are major enhancements. So there's hope long term IMHO :). Now unlike most (including me again), you go further and actually code it up apparently. That's great. But it's hard to fork SQLite and get any traction given the fast-paced refactoring/optimization the main code goes through. And also UDTs can have widespread side effects within SQLite, hard to gauge w/o having the whole code-base and design in ones head like DRH. Might be good enough for you, but not for the high quality standards which is a hallmark of SQLite IMHO. All I can suggest is continue communicating and perhaps also OSS your changes on GitHub or similar, and you may get help somehow. I suspect (hope really) first-class UDTs in SQLite (as Nico calls them) haven't been dismissed, and it's more a question of finding the time and funding to do them right, i.e. in a "lite" way that doesn't adversely affect SQLite if you don't use them, and thoroughly tested as usual. My $0.02. --DD
