On 3-apr-11, at 16:44, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
On 3-apr-11, at 15:59, Christian Manning wrote:
[...]
I was going to reply with a link to your work but you beat me to it.
I think it's a great design and incorporating it or something similar into the API may be the way to go.
Indeed ddb looks really nice (I hadn't looked at it yet), given it though, I have to agree that just adding mySQL support is too little and not really innovative for 3 months work...
Looking more maybe I was a bit too harsh, if you define clearly the goals of your API then yes it might be a good project.
The api doesn't have to be defined yet, but a more detailed definition of its goals should be there, maybe with code example of some usages. Questions that should be answered:
* support for static and dynamic types.
how access of dynamic and static types differs, should be as little as possible, and definitely the access one uses for dynamic types should work without changes on static types
* class or struct for row object
* support for table specific classes?
* reference to description of the table (to be able to get also dynamic types by column name, but avoid using too much memory for the structure)
* Nice to define table structure, and what happens if the db has another structure.
* you want to support only access or also db creation and modification?
I feel that these things should be addressed in a complete proposal, with possible answers that might be changed later on depending on how things actually go.
Fawzi