From marijnh at gmail.com  Thu Dec 26 12:19:29 2013
From: marijnh at gmail.com (Marijn Haverbeke)
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 13:19:29 +0100
Subject: doquery for DAOs
In-Reply-To: <CAJVWyAyboAvffi=4m_xTH5+eXmHsBWGyS66x7CYu_rH3KEHMXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJVWyAyboAvffi=4m_xTH5+eXmHsBWGyS66x7CYu_rH3KEHMXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJnHWXum8NgDCrcmODG-_mu_1At9B7cdBySO_VsEnQupfWwtrw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Eli,

You'd have to somehow combine the query-generating functionality for
DAOs with the incremental result reading of doquery. I haven't looked
into how hard this would be to do through the public API, but I guess
it's a nice piece of functionality to add to the library. Go for it,
I'd say.

Best,
Marijn

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Eli Naeher <enaeher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am working on implementing something like doquery that operates on
> DAOs--that is, something that will allow me to iterate over all the DAOs
> matching a certain test without consing up all the instances at once.
>
> Before I spend too much time on this, I thought I'd see if anyone else has
> done something like this already, or if there is a simple way to do this
> with the existing doquery that I have overlooked.
>
> Thank you,
> -Eli


From enaeher at gmail.com  Tue Dec 24 17:38:57 2013
From: enaeher at gmail.com (Eli Naeher)
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:38:57 -0600
Subject: doquery for DAOs
Message-ID: <CAJVWyAyboAvffi=4m_xTH5+eXmHsBWGyS66x7CYu_rH3KEHMXg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I am working on implementing something like doquery that operates on
DAOs--that is, something that will allow me to iterate over all the DAOs
matching a certain test without consing up all the instances at once.

Before I spend too much time on this, I thought I'd see if anyone else has
done something like this already, or if there is a simple way to do this
with the existing doquery that I have overlooked.

Thank you,
-Eli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/postmodern-devel/attachments/20131224/127d58a0/attachment.html>

From enaeher at gmail.com  Tue Dec 31 19:22:37 2013
From: enaeher at gmail.com (Eli Naeher)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:22:37 -0600
Subject: Simple-date vs local-time
In-Reply-To: <CAJnHWXv7tJvpshjwZAuyhWq19aECRPjjFvhhJrqBz-ZvE9Terw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJVWyAzTL15f-ARKxYaiofTVSOp+trx_jQ+uqryNN0tODD+Kqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJnHWXv7tJvpshjwZAuyhWq19aECRPjjFvhhJrqBz-ZvE9Terw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJVWyAzi8tX2gkTQitXuRHk8XPiKQOtRwDerZ8aFnwcmticgGw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you--it's helpful to hear that.

-Eli


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Marijn Haverbeke <marijnh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Definitely use local-time. The integration worked well, back in 2007,
> and neither library has changed very much since then, so I think you
> can feel safe that they are in good shape (others are using them as
> well).
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Eli Naeher <enaeher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm working on moving an existing application to Postmodern, and I'm
> trying
> > to decide whether to go with simple-date or local-time. Currently all
> dates
> > are stored as "timestamp without time zone," but we are hoping to move
> > toward a timezone-aware model at some point down the road (although not
> > immediately--it might end up being a couple years).
> >
> > For this reason I'm considering using local-time instead of simple-date.
> > Times and dates are a big part of the application so I'd like to get this
> > right. I notice that the local-time cl-postgres integration has not had
> any
> > commits in a few years. I'm hoping this is because it is stable and
> > complete. Is anyone using it?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > -Eli
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/postmodern-devel/attachments/20131231/daed9dde/attachment.html>

From marijnh at gmail.com  Mon Dec 30 19:50:23 2013
From: marijnh at gmail.com (Marijn Haverbeke)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:50:23 +0100
Subject: Simple-date vs local-time
In-Reply-To: <CAJVWyAzTL15f-ARKxYaiofTVSOp+trx_jQ+uqryNN0tODD+Kqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJVWyAzTL15f-ARKxYaiofTVSOp+trx_jQ+uqryNN0tODD+Kqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJnHWXv7tJvpshjwZAuyhWq19aECRPjjFvhhJrqBz-ZvE9Terw@mail.gmail.com>

Definitely use local-time. The integration worked well, back in 2007,
and neither library has changed very much since then, so I think you
can feel safe that they are in good shape (others are using them as
well).

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Eli Naeher <enaeher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working on moving an existing application to Postmodern, and I'm trying
> to decide whether to go with simple-date or local-time. Currently all dates
> are stored as "timestamp without time zone," but we are hoping to move
> toward a timezone-aware model at some point down the road (although not
> immediately--it might end up being a couple years).
>
> For this reason I'm considering using local-time instead of simple-date.
> Times and dates are a big part of the application so I'd like to get this
> right. I notice that the local-time cl-postgres integration has not had any
> commits in a few years. I'm hoping this is because it is stable and
> complete. Is anyone using it?
>
> Thank you,
> -Eli


From enaeher at gmail.com  Mon Dec 30 14:55:01 2013
From: enaeher at gmail.com (Eli Naeher)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:55:01 -0600
Subject: Simple-date vs local-time
Message-ID: <CAJVWyAzTL15f-ARKxYaiofTVSOp+trx_jQ+uqryNN0tODD+Kqw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I'm working on moving an existing application to Postmodern, and I'm trying
to decide whether to go with simple-date or local-time. Currently all dates
are stored as "timestamp without time zone," but we are hoping to move
toward a timezone-aware model at some point down the road (although not
immediately--it might end up being a couple years).

For this reason I'm considering using local-time instead of simple-date.
Times and dates are a big part of the application so I'd like to get this
right. I notice that the local-time cl-postgres integration has not had any
commits in a few years. I'm hoping this is because it is stable and
complete. Is anyone using it?

Thank you,
-Eli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/postmodern-devel/attachments/20131230/5918f380/attachment.html>