Re: S.O.D.A. database Query API - call for comments

mikito Harakiri wrote:
> Minor stylistic suggestion:
>
> carNode.constrain(Car.class);

Finally thank you very much for a constructive contribution!

The original approach comes from Query-By-Example. We wanted to automatically add constraints for all instantiated members of the object passed to Query.constrain().
(all instantiated members of the Car object in the above example.)

However there is a quirk here:
To set further evaluation criteria ( like identity() ), one would need to get a handle on the members of the Car object passed to constrain(). With the current approach this does not seem possible. More brainwork is necessary here.

I fully agree:
constrain(Class) would be more straightforward with the current approach.

> I somehow feel that this type of query has a lower abstraction level (it
 looks
> similar to a plan for sql execution) but I don't seem to be able to prove
 my
> position.

Thanks a lot for an open and positive look at the approach. Any help and further ideas would be highly appreciated.

Personally I still find the names of the "getSubNode" and "getSuperNode" methods awful.

> Hope that relational folks would be able to criticise it more
> specifically (apart from usual "codasyl/no pointers allowed" cliche)

I hope the discussion has just begun.

> In your approach you probably
> will use indexes behind the scene when Cars pool grows significantly,
 therefore,
> there is not much differences there.

Yup!

Kind regards,
Carl Received on Wed May 09 2001 - 00:55:43 CEST