You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@metamodel.apache.org by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com> on 2014/03/05 19:19:53 UTC
Re: Putting Spring-module's SimpleTableDef-parser into core?
Sorry for the late reply.
I don't think we need to generalize the table def parser for now
because the format of the table definition pretty much fixed.
But like any framework code, anything that could be injected to
override default behavior is always nice. That is why we added Spring
support at the first place =)
- Henry
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Kasper Sørensen
<i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For the Spring module I needed a way for the user to provide a
> SimpleTableDef object via an externalizable string. So I ended up building
> a small parser that would take simple table definitions of this form:
>
> person (
>> id INTEGER,
>> name VARCHAR,
>> birthdate DATE
>> );
>> company (
>> id BIGINT,
>> name VARCHAR,
>> logo BINARY
>> );
>
>
> The parser is right now put directly in the DataContextFactoryBean, but can
> easily be refactored into a separate parser class...
>
> Do you guys agree that would be a better way forward to make this a general
> SimpleTableDef parser? I'm thinking that such a parser could have a general
> purpose and would also benefit in terms of maintenance to be put in the
> core module.
>
> Background: SimpleTableDefs are often used in schemaless stores like the
> MongoDB, CouchDB or HBase stores. Here it serves as a guide from the user
> to model the store.
>
> Best regards,
> Kasper
Re: Putting Spring-module's SimpleTableDef-parser into core?
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Nice !
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Kasper Sørensen
<i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I moved now the SimpleTableDefParser into core. That's actually a nice,
> separate feature then. I added this story about it also: METAMODEL-41.
>
>
> 2014-03-13 1:01 GMT+01:00 Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Yeah generic parser should be useful. And it should injectable through
>> the Spring context for extension/ override I suppose.
>>
>> - Henry
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Kasper Sørensen
>> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What I mean is that you could easily think of other similar frameworks to
>> > Spring, or just other scenarios in general, where it would also be useful
>> > to externalize table defs. For instance in DataCleaner we have a
>> ridiculous
>> > XML format for it which is waaaay verbose. We could basically throw out a
>> > few pages of XML in favor or a more concise (although interpreted, so
>> less
>> > type-safe) String element in our XML files.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2014-03-05 19:19 GMT+01:00 Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> Sorry for the late reply.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think we need to generalize the table def parser for now
>> >> because the format of the table definition pretty much fixed.
>> >>
>> >> But like any framework code, anything that could be injected to
>> >> override default behavior is always nice. That is why we added Spring
>> >> support at the first place =)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - Henry
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Kasper Sørensen
>> >> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > For the Spring module I needed a way for the user to provide a
>> >> > SimpleTableDef object via an externalizable string. So I ended up
>> >> building
>> >> > a small parser that would take simple table definitions of this form:
>> >> >
>> >> > person (
>> >> >> id INTEGER,
>> >> >> name VARCHAR,
>> >> >> birthdate DATE
>> >> >> );
>> >> >> company (
>> >> >> id BIGINT,
>> >> >> name VARCHAR,
>> >> >> logo BINARY
>> >> >> );
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The parser is right now put directly in the DataContextFactoryBean,
>> but
>> >> can
>> >> > easily be refactored into a separate parser class...
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you guys agree that would be a better way forward to make this a
>> >> general
>> >> > SimpleTableDef parser? I'm thinking that such a parser could have a
>> >> general
>> >> > purpose and would also benefit in terms of maintenance to be put in
>> the
>> >> > core module.
>> >> >
>> >> > Background: SimpleTableDefs are often used in schemaless stores like
>> the
>> >> > MongoDB, CouchDB or HBase stores. Here it serves as a guide from the
>> user
>> >> > to model the store.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> > Kasper
>> >>
>>
Re: Putting Spring-module's SimpleTableDef-parser into core?
Posted by Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>.
I moved now the SimpleTableDefParser into core. That's actually a nice,
separate feature then. I added this story about it also: METAMODEL-41.
2014-03-13 1:01 GMT+01:00 Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>:
> Yeah generic parser should be useful. And it should injectable through
> the Spring context for extension/ override I suppose.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Kasper Sørensen
> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I mean is that you could easily think of other similar frameworks to
> > Spring, or just other scenarios in general, where it would also be useful
> > to externalize table defs. For instance in DataCleaner we have a
> ridiculous
> > XML format for it which is waaaay verbose. We could basically throw out a
> > few pages of XML in favor or a more concise (although interpreted, so
> less
> > type-safe) String element in our XML files.
> >
> >
> > 2014-03-05 19:19 GMT+01:00 Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Sorry for the late reply.
> >>
> >> I don't think we need to generalize the table def parser for now
> >> because the format of the table definition pretty much fixed.
> >>
> >> But like any framework code, anything that could be injected to
> >> override default behavior is always nice. That is why we added Spring
> >> support at the first place =)
> >>
> >>
> >> - Henry
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Kasper Sørensen
> >> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > For the Spring module I needed a way for the user to provide a
> >> > SimpleTableDef object via an externalizable string. So I ended up
> >> building
> >> > a small parser that would take simple table definitions of this form:
> >> >
> >> > person (
> >> >> id INTEGER,
> >> >> name VARCHAR,
> >> >> birthdate DATE
> >> >> );
> >> >> company (
> >> >> id BIGINT,
> >> >> name VARCHAR,
> >> >> logo BINARY
> >> >> );
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The parser is right now put directly in the DataContextFactoryBean,
> but
> >> can
> >> > easily be refactored into a separate parser class...
> >> >
> >> > Do you guys agree that would be a better way forward to make this a
> >> general
> >> > SimpleTableDef parser? I'm thinking that such a parser could have a
> >> general
> >> > purpose and would also benefit in terms of maintenance to be put in
> the
> >> > core module.
> >> >
> >> > Background: SimpleTableDefs are often used in schemaless stores like
> the
> >> > MongoDB, CouchDB or HBase stores. Here it serves as a guide from the
> user
> >> > to model the store.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Kasper
> >>
>
Re: Putting Spring-module's SimpleTableDef-parser into core?
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Yeah generic parser should be useful. And it should injectable through
the Spring context for extension/ override I suppose.
- Henry
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Kasper Sørensen
<i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I mean is that you could easily think of other similar frameworks to
> Spring, or just other scenarios in general, where it would also be useful
> to externalize table defs. For instance in DataCleaner we have a ridiculous
> XML format for it which is waaaay verbose. We could basically throw out a
> few pages of XML in favor or a more concise (although interpreted, so less
> type-safe) String element in our XML files.
>
>
> 2014-03-05 19:19 GMT+01:00 Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Sorry for the late reply.
>>
>> I don't think we need to generalize the table def parser for now
>> because the format of the table definition pretty much fixed.
>>
>> But like any framework code, anything that could be injected to
>> override default behavior is always nice. That is why we added Spring
>> support at the first place =)
>>
>>
>> - Henry
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Kasper Sørensen
>> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > For the Spring module I needed a way for the user to provide a
>> > SimpleTableDef object via an externalizable string. So I ended up
>> building
>> > a small parser that would take simple table definitions of this form:
>> >
>> > person (
>> >> id INTEGER,
>> >> name VARCHAR,
>> >> birthdate DATE
>> >> );
>> >> company (
>> >> id BIGINT,
>> >> name VARCHAR,
>> >> logo BINARY
>> >> );
>> >
>> >
>> > The parser is right now put directly in the DataContextFactoryBean, but
>> can
>> > easily be refactored into a separate parser class...
>> >
>> > Do you guys agree that would be a better way forward to make this a
>> general
>> > SimpleTableDef parser? I'm thinking that such a parser could have a
>> general
>> > purpose and would also benefit in terms of maintenance to be put in the
>> > core module.
>> >
>> > Background: SimpleTableDefs are often used in schemaless stores like the
>> > MongoDB, CouchDB or HBase stores. Here it serves as a guide from the user
>> > to model the store.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Kasper
>>
Re: Putting Spring-module's SimpleTableDef-parser into core?
Posted by Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>.
What I mean is that you could easily think of other similar frameworks to
Spring, or just other scenarios in general, where it would also be useful
to externalize table defs. For instance in DataCleaner we have a ridiculous
XML format for it which is waaaay verbose. We could basically throw out a
few pages of XML in favor or a more concise (although interpreted, so less
type-safe) String element in our XML files.
2014-03-05 19:19 GMT+01:00 Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>:
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> I don't think we need to generalize the table def parser for now
> because the format of the table definition pretty much fixed.
>
> But like any framework code, anything that could be injected to
> override default behavior is always nice. That is why we added Spring
> support at the first place =)
>
>
> - Henry
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Kasper Sørensen
> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > For the Spring module I needed a way for the user to provide a
> > SimpleTableDef object via an externalizable string. So I ended up
> building
> > a small parser that would take simple table definitions of this form:
> >
> > person (
> >> id INTEGER,
> >> name VARCHAR,
> >> birthdate DATE
> >> );
> >> company (
> >> id BIGINT,
> >> name VARCHAR,
> >> logo BINARY
> >> );
> >
> >
> > The parser is right now put directly in the DataContextFactoryBean, but
> can
> > easily be refactored into a separate parser class...
> >
> > Do you guys agree that would be a better way forward to make this a
> general
> > SimpleTableDef parser? I'm thinking that such a parser could have a
> general
> > purpose and would also benefit in terms of maintenance to be put in the
> > core module.
> >
> > Background: SimpleTableDefs are often used in schemaless stores like the
> > MongoDB, CouchDB or HBase stores. Here it serves as a guide from the user
> > to model the store.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kasper
>