Comments for "DB_Table"

» Submit Your Comment
Comments are only accepted during the "Proposal" phase. This proposal is currently in the "Finished" phase.
» Comments

  • Alan Knowles  [2004-03-23 15:15 UTC]

    Need to fix this.
    only supports INT and STR types,
    - now supports DATE, DATETIME, TIME, MYSQLTIMESTAMP
    - FLOATS are on the todo list.

    not easy to get started with,
    maybe :)

    it auto-generates classes.
    - This is optional now.

    It uses the class to generate a .ini file, not the other way around.
    - Now 'can' read database structure on the fly.

    The basic philosical difference (at present.) is that dataobjects reads from the database structure, as defined in the database.
    Where as db_table creates the database structure from the data within the class.

    This has advantages
    = easy installing etc.
    and disadvantages
    = more difficult to accomodate changes in database structure after project starts..

  • Paul Jones  [2004-03-23 15:26 UTC]

    Alan, I have updated the proposal to note your comments on the state of DB_Dataobject.

    Alan said,
    > The basic philosical difference (at present.) is that dataobjects reads from the database structure, as defined in the database.
    > Where as db_table creates the database structure from the data within the class.
    > This has advantages
    > = easy installing etc.
    > and disadvantages
    > = more difficult to accomodate changes in database structure after project starts..

    I would argue that it's always difficult to accommodate changes in DB structure after a project starts; the only tool that I know of to gracefully handle schema changes is MDB. However, I do look to make DB_Table handle schema changes by comparing the internal description to what it finds at the table, although admittedly that is a difficult and long-range goal.