My NZD$0.02.... I think it's well worth having. That said, I can't say
I have any personal need, nor the time to do it, but it's certainly
worth supporting if possible. The trick will be supporting it in such a
way that it doesn't slow down or interfere with current methods (hmmmmm
maybe the current methods are slower than this would be? :-))
Craig
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 10:05, Dave Slusher wrote:
> I just can't help but adding my 0.01 EUR here again ... What's the use of
> that feature (apart from feature-completeness)?
>
> >This will only complicate things on the adaptor layer of cayenne. If it
> >were to save round-trips to the database I'd be happy but this isn't the
> >case here. So what's the use?
> >
> >Maybe I'm too puristic here? :-)
>
> For my own needs, it is because Cayenne may not be the only interface into
> the DB, so you can't assume that all PK are generated by it. The assumption
> y'all make pretty commonly is that Cayenne is the only insertor into the
> DB, which is not the case in my project. If it isn't and there are tables
> with autoincrement keys, then the DB needs to generate those natively and
> have Cayenne access them.
>
> This is a philosophical question that I can't answer. Which is better for
> Cayenne as a whole?
> 1) Requiring that if Cayenne inserts into a DB with autoincrement tables,
> no non-Cayenne systems insert (which is how it is now)
> 2) Complicating the adaptors and doing the bookkeeping of whether keys are
> generated internally or externally.
>
>
> d
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 16:15:41 EST