[PD] [psql] object hand-holding

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

I cc'ed the list since I think this is valuable discussion:

On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mike McGonagle wrote:

>
>
> On 12/10/07, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at eds.org> wrote:
> It is useful to represent the pieces in Pd space, so you can  
> understand what's going on.  That's one reason why I advocate  
> having the core object represent the connection to the database  
> rather than a query.  Otherwise, it's starts to become more like  
> Max/MSP's mega-objects (coll, zl, etc) that are really like mini- 
> applications than programming.
>
>
> At the same time, while you seem to want to abstract the query from  
> the database connection objects, SQL is not SQL to all databases.  
> One thing I have noticed is that in SQLite, you would create an  
> autoincremented ID/index field using:
>
> CREATE TABLE MINE (
>    id integer primary key autoincrement not null
> );
>
> While in MySQL (from what I remember) you do this:
>
> CREATE TABLE MINE (
>    id INT auto_increment not null
> PRIMARY KEY(id)
> );
>
> (Please not the difference in spelling "autoincrement".) So, while  
> I can understand you desire to abstract these concepts out, I  
> wonder if it would be possible. Also, I don't think that it should  
> be the task of the external to "normalize" what SQL gets entered.  
> One of the original design goals was to NOT have to actually parse  
> the SQL, relying on the user to know what they are doing, and just  
> feed the SQL into the database.
>
> I can see that from this thread alone, that this is not going to be  
> possible. Plus, if we are going to implement the idea of  
> "placeholders", that Yes, we will need to be parsing some SQL.
>
>
> There still can be query objects, they would just be designed to  
> feed to the core database objects.  These query objects would then  
> be usable if we maintain the same interface.
>
>
> And yet, the differences between databases might actually make this  
> difficult at best. That is why I still think there will end up  
> being a different object for 'sqlite', postgres, mysql, etc...

I agree with you.  Ideally, there would be a common SQL, but there is  
not.  We could try to make a common SQL, I think things like Perl:DBI  
do that (I could be wrong), but I think that would be a version 2  
kind of thing.  We can leave that till later, or perhaps never.

I still think we can make a common query object that just handles the  
placeholders, and otherwise just passed the SQL statements thru.

.hc


>
> Mike
>
>
> .hc
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
>
>
>
> News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is  
> publicity.          - Bill Moyers
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word— but it requires  
> everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream,  
> every high ideal.
> —Yehudi Menuhin (1916–1999), musician



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and  
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man  
for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.      - General  
Smedley Butler


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20071212/4423da83/attachment.htm>