On Dec 14, 12:17 pm, LauJensen <lau.jen...@bestinclass.dk> wrote: > > It's really been a time saver and I think it's a really good fit with > > ClojureQL. > > > Raphaël > > Raphaél, thank you for bringing this to my attention, it looks > interesting. > > I think this falls more in the tool-category than the language- > category. In its simplest form ClojureQL aims to make you totally DB- > Agnostic, adhering only to its own syntax and then totally > disregarding the target DBMS. I hope that it will be picked up for > further high-level abstractions ala clj-record or similar. These tools > can easily be built on top of ClojureQL, but I'm not sure that they > should be knitted into ClojureQL. > > I'm open for discussion though.
I totally agree that tools like clj-records are higher level than ClojureQL and should not be part of it. For the migrations, I'm not that sure it's completely separated. If I use ClojureQL in an application, I'll certainly use it to build my database schema, and at that time it's of great value to have migrations integrated in ClojureQL. Migrations are so interesting that I would use them even if I had to write the SQL by hand in my application: they have values even used independently from higher level tools. I'm fully aware that my argumentation would carry much more weight if I had the opportunity to contribute some code for migrations, but I currently don't have :( Raph > > /Lau B. Jensen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
