Hello Antonio,
Thank you for your prompt answer.
Your suggestion seems to be very interesting and much simplier than a par=
ser.
In this case, I must think how I'm going to save the query in another
way than now, in order to keep the containers. Because the end-user can
save the searh conditions, restore them and add some other to the previou=
s.
Fran=E7ois Van Lerberghe
Thier Monty, 15A
B-4570 Marchin
Belgique
Antonio Paez wrote :
> =
> Francois:
> =
> Just a suggestion that may or may not be applicable in your case...
> =
> Wouldn't it be simpler if you gathered the search field information fr=
om
> the
> user into diferent containers (one per table) and then, when the user
> presses "SUBMIT" you build on the fly the final SQL statement for vale=
ntina
> to read. That way, you don't need to parse an already constructed and=
> disordered SQL statement.
> =
> Antonio Paez
> www.pentaedro.com
> =
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Francois Van Lerberghe" <fvanlerberghe (at) freegates .DOT be>
> > To: "Subscribers of Valentina" <Valentina@lists.macserve.net>
> > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 12:07 PM
> > Subject: SQL parsing tool
> >
> >
> > > Hello everybody,
> > >
> > > I need a SQL parsing tool, especialy for the where clause. At first=
> > > approach, this doen't seem to be very easy. I wonder if there is so=
meone
> > > who has written one.
> > >
> > > I need this because in my project, the end-user can make a search o=
n any
> > > field from the list of tables of the query. As in Valentina, I must=
> > > group conditions by table. My plans are to read the custom SQL wher=
e
> > > clause and rewrite in the correct order.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps, Ruslan, can you make our life better and do this for us=
as
> > > you have already the parser. You just have to replace the fields in=
the
> > > correct order. Am I wrong ?
©2002 Francois Van Lerberghe |
