[jbosstools-dev] Re: JDBCReader question

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

> I have created JDBCTablesColumnsReader - it not be difficult to incorporate
> it back into JDBCReader.
> But now I do not sure should we place it back. I prefer to discuss it late -
> when I prepare all test cases and unit tests.

ok - so you want to show the code later ?

> 2) Performance problem - I check it (create unit test) - and see what
> processing of columns is a most time consuming thing;

Did you check it or are you saying you are going to check it ?

> When I create JDBCTablesColumnsReader - my answer to first question was:
> We do not need such solution and simple case - JDBCTablesColumnsReader -
> solve all situations which code completion requires.

I'm not sure what you mean here ?

> Configurable solution and JDBCReader change - requires SchemaSelection new (
> String matchColumn; ) member.

that makes no sense. Schema Selection is for reveng.xml where selecting individual columns is not usefull.

I also don't understand how that can be usefull in code completion ? If you know which table
the code completion is for why not read all columns for that table immediatly instead of a specific column (and
then of course cache it via CachedMetaDataDialect) ?

> Also configurable solution should solve the performance problem - in this
> case we should process columns only in the case when configuration requires
> this 

yes.

> so latter we can get situation when we have some tables which columns
> has not been processed - so we should handle the situation - so bulk-reading
> code should be changed.

I don't understand this ?

> In the case when we just merge JDBCTablesColumnsReader & JDBCReader into one
> - bulk-reading code should not be changed.

?

/max

> Vitali
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Rydahl Andersen [mailto:max.andersen at redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:48 AM
> To: Vitali Yemialyanchyk
> Cc: jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: JDBCReader question
>
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:49:22 +0100, Vitali Yemialyanchyk
> <vyemialyanchyk at exadel.com> wrote:
>
>> I am expecting such readings should be in one place and JDBCReader seems
> to
>> be a right place.
>
> Your are right - what I did not understand why existing bulk-reading code
> should be changed ?
>
> /max
>
>