Re: [gnome-db] SqlBuilder feedback

2009/10/25 Murray Cumming <[email protected]>:
> I've looked at the new GdaSqlBuilder API and I have some thoughts.
>
> Firstly, I think that the IDs are exposed too often. I can see how the
> ID could have some use to an application programmer, but it should not
> be the main way to use the API.
>
> At the least, this (pseudo-code) is annoying:
>  gda_sql_builder_add_field(builder,
>    gda_sql_builder_add_id(builder, 0, "sometable.somefield") );
>
> This would be nicer:
>  gda_sql_builder_add_field(builder, "somefield",
> "sometable" (optional))
>  would be nicer.
>
> In subsequent calls, GdaSqlBuilder would use the same ID automatically.
>
>
> The current API gets even more long-winded when dealing with values too,
> for UPDATE commands:
>  gda_sql_builder_add_field(builder,
>    gda_sql_builder_add_id(builder, 0, "sometable.somefield") );
>    gda_sql_builder_add_expr(builder, 0, NULL, 123) );
>
> This would be simpler:
>  gda_sql_builder_add_field_value(builder, "somefield",
> "sometable" (optional), 123);

Using ID allows the API to be kept to a minimum number of functions,
while allowing one to build very complex statements, so I want to keep
them as they are, but I agree there is a need to have some more "daily
usage" API to have less lines of code. There are 2 ways of doing this:
either create some real functions or use macros. Even though I like to
keep the number of methods to a minimal, using macros here can lead to
difficult debugging times as the macros could get complex, so I
propose to add new "higher level" API, starting with:

void gda_sql_builder_easy_add_field (GdaSqlBuilder *builder, const
gchar *field_table, const gchar *field_name, GType type, ...)
and
void gda_sql_builder_easy_add_field_value (GdaSqlBuilder *builder,
const gchar *field_table, const gchar *field_name, GValue *value)

What do you think?

Vivien