I saw that the Firebird adapter was merged to the trunk last night... thanks Jeremy! Since I last submitted the fb patch (11/1), I''ve been working on several improvements, including: 1) I reorganized the code to match the newer conventions used in the other adapters (mostly just changed the order and grouping of methods, and added some "section header" comments). 2) An updated, improved version of the FireRuby extension was released last weekend (0.4.0). Based on the updates, I was able to improve and simplify the adapter. (Most importantly, I was able to remove the hack/work-around that was there to deal with the fact that FireRuby returned DATE columns as Time objects). 3) Migrations! 4) Added connection management methods #active? and #reconnect! (ref. #428) ...the biggest change obviously being #3. Ironically, I just finished this last night, and was planning to submit an updated patch later this week after some additional testing and documentation updates. My question is, should I submit these changes as a single "Firebird adapter update" patch, or submit them individually? One more question... any chance this will make it onto the stable branch (1.0)? If not, would it be a good idea to wrap the adapter into a plugin so that users could easily install it on top of a standard 1.0 install? Thanks again Jeremy for your effort in merging the patch. Also thank you Nicholas, Sam, Marcel and David for your feedback and input along the way. -Ken
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 16, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Ken Kunz wrote:> I saw that the Firebird adapter was merged to the trunk last night... > thanks Jeremy!Thanks for writing the whole thing.> Since I last submitted the fb patch (11/1), I''ve been working on > several improvements, including: > 1) I reorganized the code to match the newer conventions used in the > other adapters (mostly just changed the order and grouping of methods, > and added some "section header" comments). > 2) An updated, improved version of the FireRuby extension was released > last weekend (0.4.0). Based on the updates, I was able to improve and > simplify the adapter. (Most importantly, I was able to remove the > hack/work-around that was there to deal with the fact that FireRuby > returned DATE columns as Time objects).Does the adapter raise an error on old versions of FireRuby?> 3) Migrations! > 4) Added connection management methods #active? and #reconnect! > (ref. #428) > > ...the biggest change obviously being #3. Ironically, I just finished > this last night, and was planning to submit an updated patch later > this week after some additional testing and documentation updates. > > My question is, should I submit these changes as a single "Firebird > adapter update" patch, or submit them individually?Please submit them individually. It is far easier to manage.> One more question... any chance this will make it onto the stable > branch (1.0)? If not, would it be a good idea to wrap the adapter > into a plugin so that users could easily install it on top of a > standard 1.0 install?1.0 is in nearly its final release candidate. I think 1.1 is more appropriate. Users who want Firebird ASAP can run beta gems. 1.1 isn''t far off, so no worries. Best, jeremy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDe8/9AQHALep9HFYRAlF4AJwIm09K59Kc0/SPhzSk5/rzP1ZM6wCg49jS s/xqmBSGY1nWzcY1TJfh558=Z7lF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 2) An updated, improved version of the FireRuby extension was released > > last weekend (0.4.0). Based on the updates, I was able to improve and > > simplify the adapter. (Most importantly, I was able to remove the > > hack/work-around that was there to deal with the fact that FireRuby > > returned DATE columns as Time objects). > > Does the adapter raise an error on old versions of FireRuby?Not currently, but this would be trivial to add (and I''ll do so). I also documented the dependency clearly. -Ken