This sounds very good because we cannot possibly cover all types users
would like to use and runtime dependencies should be kept minimal.
Once implicit custom type support is in place, we could then implement
addon modules just like David and Willie suggested.
Joda Time support is on my todo-list for squeryl so I'm willing to
have a shot at it if the necessary refactorings are done at some
point.
It's also the only thing blocking me from using squeryl in certain
projects. I'd be happy to switch to squeryl from a bit quirkier ORMs
(Eclipselink and Hibernate, I'm looking at you!).
- Joonas
On Apr 26, 9:59 pm, Maxime Lévesque <
maxime.leves...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been contemplating for a while some refactorings that would make
> introducing new field types simple to the point
> that adding YourOwnType would only involve adding an "implicit
> YourOwnTypeHelper" in the scope.
>
> I think it can be done, but I have to make a proof of concept first.
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Wille Faler <
wille.fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
>
> > Rather than bake everything into one cake, have a minimal core, true to
> > purpose, with optional modules, such as Joda-time support, "Oracle special
> > case functions" (someone mentioned MD5 earlier today, which is not
> > necessarily widely supported) etc.
>
> > On 26 April 2011 19:46, David Whittaker <
d...@iradix.com> wrote:
>
> >> I wonder if we might not be far from the point where it's best to offer a
> >> few optional modules along with core Squeryl. In this case squeryl-joda.jar
> >> could have the joda time dependency, and it might be nice to have modules
> >> for some of the more popular databases so we can add functions that don't
> >> exist in all supported DBs. Just a thought.
>
> >> 2011/4/26 Maxime Lévesque <
maxime.leves...@gmail.com>
>
> >>> I'm a bit reluctant to add a dependency on JodaTime, though I really
> >>> agree that the jdk date/calendar sucks,
> >>> if the dependency can be only a compile time one, then I'd seriously
> >>> consider it.
>
> >>> Adding a new kind of field is done like this :
>
> >>>
https://github.com/max-l/Squeryl/commit/b1981f43523ed5ea50a5d09d8b656...
>
> >>> In theory the dependency on JodaTime should be compile time only, but I
> >>> would't bet on it.
>
> >>> Implicit convs in your code is an easy solution though, given that dates
> >>> are small objects it, the GC penalty
> >>> shouldn't be too big.
>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Wille Faler <
wille.fa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> ..second that, could it potentially be added quite easily with implicit
> >>>> conversion to/from jdk date/calendars?
>
> >>>> 2011/4/26 Vincent Côté-Roy <
vincen...@jucent.com>