On 1/16/24 6:41 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
> On 1/16/24 17:39, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 1/16/24 4:57 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>>>> Or perhaps you have to beef the sed up to use word boundaries just
>>>> in case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a Java web developer... 😁
>>>
>>> You need to adjust you glasses if that's what you see me as.
>>
>> Reality is that basically all modern (as in last 20 years) SQL access
>> is via frameworks that all use their own language and come up with SQL
>> based on that. How hard it'd be to bulk change the schema depends
>> entirely on the framework.
> Hm, it's a string /somewhere/. The rest of this thread might be accused
> of adding to the problem.
No, it's not, at least not as a complete SQL statement. See [1] as an
example of how this works in Ruby on Rails. Most modern frameworks work
in a similar fashion: you DON'T write raw SQL, or anything that looks
anything like it. In fact, many (most?) of these frameworks make it
difficult to do anything in raw SQL because it completely breaks the
paradigm of the framework.
Note that I'm talking about *frameworks*, not languages. But since most
languages require huge amounts of boilerplate to create a web service or
website it's not surprising that pretty much everyone uses frameworks.
(Go is actually an interesting exception to this.)
1: https://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html#find
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Austin TX