> I guess we can make "autodetect" a default in that dialog. Hmm.. we can't. As this dialog is shown before we even connect to DB.
Andrus > On Oct 23, 2018, at 3:45 PM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: > > Yeah, you'd need to select the specific adapter right in the generation > dialog. > > I guess we can make "autodetect" a default in that dialog. > > Andrus > > >> On Oct 23, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Tony Giaccone <t...@giaccone.org> wrote: >> >> It might be useful for the Modeler to auto-detect as well because if you do >> schema generation, you end up with different sql from the modeler than the >> runtime. We started a dbdeploy process, and the sql generated was captured >> from the modeler with the JDBC plain adaptor for the auto_pk, but then >> instances also sequences because some of the it was originally done using >> schema generation and it got confusing. >> >> >> Tony >> >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:40 AM Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> >> wrote: >> >>> If you don't set the adapter, Cayenne will auto-detect the DB type in >>> runtime and install a proper adapter. Modeler doesn't do auto-detection, >>> but the runtime does. In fact I don't remember when was the last time I had >>> to specify an adapter explicitly. >>> >>> Andrus >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:38 AM, Tony Giaccone <t...@giaccone.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I understand that the kind of PK support that Cayenne uses depends on the >>>> adaptor you use. When you use: >>>> >>>> org.apache.cayenne.dba.postgres.PostgresAdapter >>>> >>>> you get sequences, not the pk_auto table. >>>> >>>> I see where you can pick the adaptor as part of a database schema >>>> generation. What's less clear to me, is what adaptor is used if cayenne >>>> detects that a schema needs to be generated. Or more generally what >>> causes >>>> a dba adaptor to end up in the stack. >>>> >>>> Is there some kind of database detection that determines which adaptor >>> get >>>> used? >>>> >>>> I didn't think we were explicitly setting it to PostgresAdapter, and yet >>> we >>>> still ended up with sequences. Of course it's possible that someone on >>> the >>>> team did, so I don't want to rule that out as a possibility, but it >>> occurs >>>> to me that there might be some kind of detection especially in cases >>> where >>>> the schema is being generated "automatically". >>>> >>>> >>>> Tony Giaccone >>> >>> >
