Conversion of a SQL model into a standard item model?

[VRonin]

@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 with QStandardItemModel via the QAbstractItemModel interface as I always suggest, makes changing the model a matter of 1 code line

Unclear 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

[elfring]

… if you want to interact with an SQL database

Unfortunately, the Qt software documentation mentions specific limitations for the class “QSqlTableModel” so far.

[SGaist]

Do you mean the ones solved by QSqlRelationalTableModel and QSqlRelationalDelegate mentioned in the documentation you are linking to ?

[elfring]

Maybe.

Do both table model classes share still the main restriction on editing from a single database table?

[SGaist]

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

[elfring]

QSqlTableModel as it name suggest allows access to one table.

Can such classes collaborate also with database views?

[VRonin]

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

[elfring]

Would it be nicer if a table model can determine if it is based on an updatable view?

[VRonin]

Yes, but once again

@VRonin said in Conversion of a SQL model into a standard item model?:

there's no generic way for a Qt model to know that

[elfring]

Do full-featured standard item models become a bit more attractive then?

[SGaist]

Attractive for what ?

[elfring]

Would you like to compare the attractiveness of the mentioned data model variants any further?

[SGaist]

I'll let you start by providing the analysis you want to discuss about.

[elfring]

Is there a “development competition” going on between data processing by SQL queries and/or Qt standard items?

[JKSH]

@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]

I hope that more software evolution can happen in this area so that the switching between discussed data models might become easier.

[JKSH]

@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.

[elfring]

Will other Qt users share more convincing arguments from involved software development challenges?

[JonB]

@elfring

Will other Qt users share more convincing arguments from involved software development challenges?

"Other Qt users" will not even understand what these unending questions are about ;-) Just saying....

[elfring]

I assume that some Qt users will care for collateral evolution around data models.