You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In 2021 postgresql support (69) was suggested and it was decided to not support it. In 2022 support for LiteDB was added and in 2023 the DbProviders Logic was separated in a standalone project.
I wonder from a technical standpoint if the refactoring of the DbProviders has the positive effect that the effort to implement a Provider for PostgreSQL or SQLite / libsql-server is reduced?
YesSql is a .NET Core document database interface over relational databases which allows you to define documents and indexes using plain old CLR objects. The main difference with document databases is that it uses any RDBMS to store them, which gives you all the power of SQL databases like transactions, replication, reporting, ... But the main advantage might be that there is no magic involved, it's pure SQL!
I have never tried YesSql but wonder if used as a proxy between GrandNode2 Repository Layer and a relational database would make it easier to support relational databases.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In 2021 postgresql support (69) was suggested and it was decided to not support it. In 2022 support for LiteDB was added and in 2023 the DbProviders Logic was separated in a standalone project.
I wonder from a technical standpoint if the refactoring of the
DbProviders
has the positive effect that the effort to implement a Provider for PostgreSQL or SQLite / libsql-server is reduced?I assume that RegisterDataLayer is the place to start looking. And that one would have to create an implementation for the IRepository and the IDatabaseContext Interface?
Thanks
Edit
I just stumbled over YesSql.
I have never tried YesSql but wonder if used as a proxy between GrandNode2 Repository Layer and a relational database would make it easier to support relational databases.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: