[teiid-designer-dev] [teiid-dev] vdb.xml improvements

[Steven Hawkins]

----- Original Message -----
> I would rather see us go take upon the larges issues you listed like
> DDL
> based schema definition and leave the minor ones as is, as once DDL

I can see that viewpoint, but my thought is that we're making the vdb.xml a somewhat more visible artifact with product support for dynamic vdbs.  Any steps toward easy of use / consistency would seem to help over the long run of the remaining 8.x line.

> feature implemented, it will change the vdb.xml anyway.

In a ddl only world all of our constructs need converted.  CREATE FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER replaces translator declarations, GRANT statements for the permissions/roles, CREATE SCHEMA, etc.  The question is to what degree does supporting xml declarations make our/Designer's life easier in the short/long run.  Keeping the xml mostly saves us from writing more parsing hooks and until we allow these operations at runtime having a statement based mechansim for declaration is just a nice to have.  So the question for the rest of 8.x is what if anything would be nice to declare in DDL rather than or in addition to xml?

On getting the DDL footprint down options include:
 
- Keeping the zip concept and allowing the vdb.xml to reference a .ddl file in the vdb artifact
  - In theory this would be implemented through the use of a built-in metadata repository

- begin work on the notion of a "live" modeshape metadata repository (this is mostly a separable effort)

- introduce notion of a deployable schema / .ddl artifact that can be referenced by the vdb.xml (this doesn't seem like the right approach). 

Any other thoughts?

> 
> On 03/05/2013 10:52 AM, Steven Hawkins wrote:
> > For 8.4 planning I'd like to solicit ideas about incremental
> > improvements we could make to our vdb.xml (of course we'd want to
> > make the changes backwards compatible).  This would include minor
> > things like:
> > 
> > - better property keys for example "UseConnectorMetadata" - which
> > isn't necessarily needed in its present form
> > - allowing the use of element text as an alternative to an
> > attribute for a property value
> > - terminology changes, such as model->schema
> > 
> > To larger things like:
> > 
> > - how/should we get the ddl memory footprint down
> > - future proof to allow for ddl based schema declarations
> > 
> > Is there anything to add/remove from these?  We'll rollup the
> > result into a JIRA.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Steve
> > _______________________________________________
> > teiid-dev mailing list
> > teiid-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/teiid-dev
> > 
>