Please someone tell me I am wrong.

Here I was, happily coding along, when I got into something that possibly will force me to drop Oracle support: Oracle's implementation of sequences.

By not having built-in insert-support of auto-incrementing sequences like others do (PG,MY, SQL-se et.al) they leave the incrementing of primary key to the insert statement using seqname.nextval.

Yes, this could be made using a trigger. But to me, triggers are teh ugly shit, in general.
Having one in almost every table really stinks. It is bad form. Added a column? Tough luck, you're likely to have some trigger that needs that column added to.

I have seen the rationale for this, that it is better to have sequences table independent.
But that's missing the point. It's not about that, everybody else has that too.
It's about control and should be the OTHER WAY.

The sequencing should always happen automatically in those tables using them when records are inserted.
It should not be possible for an application to insert a custom value in a sequenced column. It should not be possible to, by accident, choose the wrong sequence.

This aspect even makes it dangerous.
Actually, most developers just use sequences to have a new value for each insert, not caring very much if there is a gap. The only time they get in trouble for using the wrong sequence is when they try to insert a value that already exists. Usually, that problem is not even a problem and almost immediately visible.

But in financial applications, for example, having gaps the sequence could have serious legal ramifications, possibly not seen until some reconciliation event occurs years later. And by then it have created situations that are almost impossible to rectify. And, even more importantly, explain, to the SEC or IRS when they come knocking. Where did you put those missing futures contracts now again? Where is that coupon? Hopefully someone will notice. But likely they won't since they are many working with the same sequence.

So to provide sequencing support for Oracle, the INSERT commands need to know lots of things about the table. And since I want to abstract the creation, I need to keep track of this weirdness.

I am thinking about automatically creating an very specifically named trigger but it seems so stupid and out of place. It really does not fit well with how DAL is supposed to work.

Aww crap.