I completely agree with your other points. Yes, these both modes are different and provide different levels integration to the user. We have to pursue both modes. On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:42 -0400, Ken Johnson wrote: > > What we want to do now is define the runtime model we need for the > > engine, then whatever the persistent form may that be DDL or SQL/MED > or > > XML will defined in coming releases, that produces this runtime > model. > > > I'm a bit unclear here. There's a need to define the runtime model > we > need for the engine? The current metadata language object definitions we have is the contract between the index/xmi/vdb files to Teiid Engine. Currently we do not define a metadata model that can be used by the connector (I am talking about metadata consumption by the engine from connector, not how engine communicates with connector). We need some APIs in the Connector API that we need to either define or elevate from the metadata module, so that connectors can define their metadata in a consistent manner across all connectors. Then it is up to Connector developer to define its persistent from metadata of whether it is ad-hoc program or DDL or XMI files or Custom Script (ex:text connector).

The example SteveH keep using us akin to JDBC Metadata, where you can inquire JDBC source about its metadata data, where it provides the metadata in resultset, here I am talking about a object model, that is the difference. Ramesh..