Conversion of a SQL model into a standard item model?
-
@elfring said in Conversion of a SQL model into a standard item model?:
Possible change resistance
Deal with it.
If you mean change in code, by only interacting withQStandardItemModel
via theQAbstractItemModel
interface as I always suggest, makes changing the model a matter of 1 code lineUnclear development efforts (and additional dependencies)
The additional dependency is the SQL module. Hard to get around it if you want to interact with an SQL database
-
Do you mean the ones solved by QSqlRelationalTableModel and QSqlRelationalDelegate mentioned in the documentation you are linking to ?
-
It's not a restriction, it's how the class works. QSqlTableModel as it name suggest allows access to one table.
So what exactly are you after ?
Specify a real situation
Specify a real need -
From the article you linked:
If the database system can determine the reverse mapping from the view schema to the schema of the underlying base tables, then the view is updatable. INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE operations can be performed on updatable views.
Since there's no generic way for a Qt model to know that, it is left to the user to implement using
QSqlQuery
directly -
Attractive for what ?
-
I'll let you start by providing the analysis you want to discuss about.
-
@elfring said in Conversion of a SQL model into a standard item model?:
Is there a “development competition” going on between data processing by SQL queries and/or Qt standard items?
No, there is no competition going on.
@elfring, what is your goal for asking us these questions? Are you trying to get us to write a "software extension" for you?
-
@elfring said in Conversion of a SQL model into a standard item model?:
I hope that more software evolution can happen in this area so that the switching between discussed data models might become easier.
We will not perform this "software evolution" because we cannot see any good reason to provide additional conversion/switching between QSqlTableModel and QStandardItemModel. Furthermore, none of your posts above provide convincing arguments for this conversion/switching.