On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 22:30 +0200, Francis Galiegue wrote:
>
> This is what I really want to achieve, though. I'm close to it, really
> close. The Dialect API, as it exists today, only lacks a few pieces
> and logical separation to make it easier and fully functional. And it
> is of high interest
2009/6/11 Max Rydahl Andersen :
> Splitting out dml/ddl so one could build something like a "structural
> compare of configurations" to create a better
> migration would be interesting;
That's one of the aspects I was thinking about when I proposed a
DDL/DML separation. HQL only requires the DML p
Splitting out dml/ddl so one could build something like a "structural
compare of configurations" to create a better
migration would be interesting; though I really don't believe dynamic
mappings that also dynamically decided
the db-layout and statements is going to be more than a quick
prototypi
1) A DML/DDL split is not going to happen. Too broad.
2) keep this discussion on list please.
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 14:49 +0200, Francis Galiegue wrote:
> 2009/6/10 Steve Ebersole :
> > On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 17:11 +0200, Francis Galiegue wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> Steven has pointed to a Jira task
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 17:11 +0200, Francis Galiegue wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> During the last two weeks, I've been developing a small framework
> allowing to create mappings on the fly, all the while allowing
> existing sessions to "fail gracefully" (ie, if their session fails to
> find a previ
Hello everyone,
During the last two weeks, I've been developing a small framework
allowing to create mappings on the fly, all the while allowing
existing sessions to "fail gracefully" (ie, if their session fails to
find a previously mapped column or table, they try with a newer
session). I don't u
