[fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7 -AddNewMethodstoFdoClassDefinition-TakeII

[Robert Fortin]

" Right now FDO supports version enabled tables. What is with FDO
classes
based on those tables, they would have IsVirtual set or not ?"

For version enabled tables the view is only a internal mechanism used to
make it happen. There is no distinction between the feature table and
the view in this case and IsVirtual property would be set a False.

But that being said, this RFC will be withdraw since we didn't convince
enough people on this mainly list to justify it.  We will have to find
another way to get to do what we want.  This doesn't seem to be the
right way.

Thanks!

RF

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Haris
Kurtagic
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 2:14 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7
-AddNewMethodstoFdoClassDefinition-TakeII

Majority reasons and explanation why this attribute is required was
given as: is updatable, read-only, cache...

I am not in suport of this functionality, especially if I can't see what
it means in context of FDO and FDO application.
I think this attribute will no be used and set properly and then either
it will left "unused" or be very application/provider specific.

Right now FDO supports version enabled tables. What is with FDO classes
based on those tables, they would have IsVirtual set or not ?

Haris

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Barbara
Zoladek
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:18 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7
-AddNewMethodstoFdoClassDefinition-Take II

We should not get bogged down by using (or not using) this flag for
getting the class updateability. 
The most significant difference between a virtual object based class and
"physical" object based class is that the former does not contain any
data and it has dependencies on other classes. And that is what we
wanted to expose. 

Barbara.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-
> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Haris Kurtagic
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:01 PM
> To: FDO Internals Mail List
> Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7 -
AddNewMethodstoFdoClassDefinition-Take II
> 
> 
> As far as I understand this conversation:
> 
> IsVirtual attribute will be set for FDO Classes which are based on
> database View so it will mark that FDO class is not updatable.
> View can be updatable or not, you cannot determine if the view is
> updatable or not.
> 
> Even FDO provider can't determine if View is updatable the provider
> should set attribute that FDO Class is virtual which will mean that it
> is not updatable FDO Class.
> 
> I think this is not the way to go.
> 
> Haris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Barbara
> Zoladek
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:59 AM
> To: FDO Internals Mail List
> Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7 - Add
> NewMethodstoFdoClassDefinition-Take II
> 
> > I am trying to understand how FDO client application can use
> information
> > that FDO Class is based on RDBMS View ?
> 
> Since the view updateability cannot be determined reliably, the
> application knowing that the class is based on the virtual object
would
> be able to prevent data editing. The alternative would be to let the
> user insert/update data and hit the error at the target datastore and
> tell user that the operation is invalid. That's not the right
approach.
> Another example could be the case when application is caching data and
> must keep caches is sync.
> 
> > For RDBMS application View can be same as Table. Data can be
> modifided,
> > index created, triggers created, etc..
> > For application's there is no difference if data is coming from View
> or
> > Table.
> 
> Well, not exactly. Only simple views are updateable. Views based on
> complex queries require instead-of-triggers to make them updateable.
You
> cannot determine if the view is updateable or not. True that for
> example, SQL Server allows creating an index (Oracle does not), but
> still it depends on the underlying database object.
> 
> Thanks,
> Barbara.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-
> > bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Haris Kurtagic
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:05 PM
> > To: FDO Internals Mail List
> > Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7 - Add New
> MethodstoFdoClassDefinition-Take II
> >
> > I am trying to understand how FDO client application can use
> information
> > that FDO Class is based on RDBMS View ?
> >
> > For RDBMS application View can be same as Table. Data can be
> modifided,
> > index created, triggers created, etc..
> > For application's there is no difference if data is coming from View
> or
> > Table.
> >
> > Haris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> > [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Barbara
> > Zoladek
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:50 PM
> > To: FDO Internals Mail List
> > Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7 - Add New Methods
> > toFdoClassDefinition-Take II
> >
> > Hi Haris,
> >
> > Yes, that's the case.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Barbara.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-
> > > bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Haris Kurtagic
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 4:43 PM
> > > To: FDO Internals Mail List
> > > Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7 - Add New Methods to
> > FdoClassDefinition-Take
> > > II
> > >
> > > Hi Barbara,
> > >
> > > I don't understand in which cases provider should set that FDO
Class
> > is
> > > Virtual.
> > >
> > > In the case when FDO Class is based on RDBMS View ?
> > >
> > > Haris
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> > > [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Barbara
> > > Zoladek
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 9:35 PM
> > > To: FDO Internals Mail List
> > > Subject: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 7 - Add New Methods to
> > > FdoClassDefinition -Take II
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for all your comments on RFC-7.
> > > The new version is now available:
> > >
> > >  http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc7
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Barbara.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > fdo-internals mailing list
> > > fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > fdo-internals mailing list
> > > fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > fdo-internals mailing list
> > fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> > _______________________________________________
> > fdo-internals mailing list
> > fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals