Warren Young wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Rick Gutleber wrote:
>
>> Do you envision the policy as an actual object (i.e., class)?
> Yes.
>
> The only other alternative that comes to mind is an enum and a switch
> statement inside insert(con, policy), but I think you will actually
> end up with multiple versions of insert(con, policy), if only due to
> the differences between sequence and associative containers. So,
> you'd end up duplicating code if you don't factor it out somehow.
Actually, that was my original thought, which is why I was thinking of
the enum... I didn't quite get what you meant by the Policy class until
this message. I think I do now.
> Also, people may want to create their own policy classes. I don't
> propose to solve everyone's problem with this, just most people's. :)
The template function would work with a completely external Policy class
as long as it provides the right methods: OO without all the messing
around with abstract base classes (although I like abstract base
classes). That's still a new idea to me, I have to get used to it.
>> Or maybe the policy should be a private struct....
>
> End-user code can't create policy objects if the declaration is private.
Duh. <smacks face> I meant a public member struct of the Query class.
>
>> Or, would you prefer me to use my own judgement and show you when I
>> have something? ;-)
>
> That, too, but be prepared for requests to go back and rewrite it. :)
No problem.
>
> You have read HACKERS.txt, I hope?
I have now. :-)
By the way, I really don't know I originally concluded that insert( Iter
first, Iter last ) only inserts a row at a time. That's obviously not
true. I think someone spiked my Mountain Dew.
However, that leads me to another question. I was all ready to start
knocking this thing out, but I realized each of the insert( ), replace(
), etc calls in class Query puts a single query into the stream which
gets executed when you call execute( ). But now we are creating a
situation where one call to insert( ) could result in multiple queries.
We are doing so, among other things, to avoid exceeding the maximum
packet size. If I call execute( ) with, which in turn calls
mysql_real_query( ) which requires multi-statement execution to be
turned on to process multiple statements at once. I would guess that
maximum packet size would apply to the compound statement not each
individual one.
The only alternative I can see is maintaining state outside of calls to
insert( ), something like this:
Query::insert( Iter & it, Policy policy ) {
}
Iter it = container.begin( );
for ( Iter it = container.begin( ); it != container.end( );
query.insert( it, policy ) ) {
query.execute( );
}
Am I missing something here?
Rick
