Added includes section + full name matching

[SirFlex]

Hi,

I added the include section in confuguration file, that allows to include excluded objects.

Also, object name to pattern matching extended for full object name.
I mean: full_object_name := schema_name.object_name

A hope these improvements would be useful for base fork.

[arno82]

Hi.
I have a few questions :-)

Could it be that scheme2ddl.config.xml with examples for the includes is missing?

Why do you want to include objects that are defined in the excludes section of scheme2ddl.config.xml ?
You could also use -tf and -tfm to get some specific DDL objects and empty your exclude section in the scheme2ddl.config.xml file.

[SirFlex]

Hi, I'm weak in Spring... my implementation requires includes. If you know, how make include not necessary, I'll be grateful for advice.
"You could also use -tf and -tfm to get some specific DDL objects "... yes, but by object type only. But I need to include only some objects by name. That's why i added includes in config file.

[arno82]

Ah ok, so you want to exclude for example every TYPE BODY, except for some named ones in an include list.
I see your point.

Maybe you can modifiy the exclude value section to fit your needs withsome regex magic?
< util:map id="excludes">
< entry key="TYPE BODY">
< set>
< value>((?!json))(|)((?!text_dlist))*< /value>
< /set>
< /entry>

This will exclude everything from the exclude that start with json or starts with text_dlist :-)

PS: Had to put an whitespace after every < otherwise the comment wouldn't appear...

[SirFlex]

Thank you, but "regex magic" is too difficult in usage... especially when a number of objects to include is great.
I want to extends the initial idea that objects may be excluded and... included by specifiing their names (or patterns for their names)
(Sorry for my weak English)

[qwazer]

Hello, SirFlex and Arno!
Thanks for pull request and discussing.

I try to keep scheme2ddl simple as possible and keep backward compatibility. (But I accidentally broke this in recent versions 😕 ).

I'm not sure, that a lot of options and a lot of various ways for include/exclude functionality is good for keeping it simple.

From this point, Arno, I doubted about #27 but I accepted it in respect for your contributing.

I didn't decide yet what to do with this pull request. I'll think about it.

Thanks in any case 👍