sorry, for my engrish. I should have read that a second time. Try #2
You can solve the "circular" with the groupBy. Depending on the direction of your query. If you query from the category then you want to populate the list of products. If you query from the Product you want to populate the Category and this can be accomplished with the groupBy. But, in this approach it is not really resolving a circular. Because the queries are directional and avoid the circular. Brandon On 6/8/05, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you could solve it this way depending on the direction of your query. > If you query from the category then you want to populatte the list. If > you query from the Product you want to populate the Category and this > can be accomplished with the groupBy. > > Brandon > > On 6/8/05, Ersin Er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the detailed reply. Today, I have implemented a similar > > example and understood the concept. I've realized that groupBy attribute > > take the related key from the "class property", not db table column. > > When I've tried the table column as the value of the groupBy, it worked > > without any exeptions but with silly results. Every row was mapped with > > a category, however there were 9 rows and 3 categories. Isn't it > > possible for SQL Mapper to determine if the value of the groupBy really > > maps with an existing property? > > > > By the last example everything (ofcourse in the context of groupBy :) ) > > became more clear. > > > > And one more question. As I see, you prefer to put a product list to > > category class, but you do not prefer to put a category reference to > > product class. Is this the prefered way to implement this kind of > > relationships especially where circular dependencies exist? > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- Ersin > > > > Brandon Goodin wrote: > > > > >The real issue that is addressed with the groupBy is the ability to > > >use a single query for populating complex properties mapped in the > > >resultMap with the <result...resultMap="..."/> tag. In the past you > > >would be required to map to a statement with the select attribute of > > >the result tag which meant multiple additional queries and redundant > > >object population. There were other strategies that were just as > > >inneficient. The groupBy eliminates this by allowing you to specify > > >the repeating property that will identify this object and populate the > > >class defined in the resultMap. Further you can chain multiple > > >resultMaps using the <result...resultMap="..."/> tag and map any > > >number of objects with groupBy using the same select results. > > > > > >Following is a sample Clinton posted from the unit tests a while back. > > >It may help you to understand groupBy better: > > > > > ><resultMap id="categoryResult" class="testdomain.Category" > > >groupBy="categoryId"> > > > <result property="categoryId" column="catid"/> > > > <result property="name" column="name"/> > > > <result property="description" column="descn"/> > > > <result property="productList" resultMap="productResult"/> > > > </resultMap> > > > > > > <resultMap id="productResult" class="testdomain.Product" > > > groupBy="productId"> > > > <result property="productId" column="productid"/> > > > <result property="categoryId" column="category"/> > > > <result property="name" column="name"/> > > > <result property="description" column="descn"/> > > > <result property="itemList" resultMap="itemResult"/> > > > </resultMap> > > > > > > <resultMap id="itemResult" class="testdomain.Item"> > > > <result property="itemId" column="itemid"/> > > > <result property="productId" column="productid"/> > > > <result property="listPrice" column="listprice"/> > > > <result property="unitCost" column="unitcost"/> > > > <result property="supplierId" column="supplier"/> > > > <result property="status" column="status"/> > > > <result property="attribute1" column="attr1"/> > > > <result property="quantity" column="qty"/> > > > </resultMap> > > > > > > <select id="getAllCategories" resultMap="categoryResult" > > > > select * > > > from category c, product p, item i, inventory v > > > where c.catid = p.category > > > and p.productid = i.productid > > > and i.itemid = v.itemid > > > </select> > > > > > > <select id="getFish" resultMap="categoryResult" > > > > select * > > > from category c, product p, item i, inventory v > > > where c.catid = p.category > > > and p.productid = i.productid > > > and i.itemid = v.itemid > > > and c.catid = 'FISH' > > > </select> > > > > > > > > >On 6/8/05, Ersin Er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Brandon Goodin wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>This will help you: > > >>>http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/IBATIS/How+do+I+get+around+the+N+Plus+1+selects+problem%3F > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>Infact, the document is the same as the Developer's Guide. What a pity, > > >>it did not help me. Anyway, I'm trying and learning myself. > > >> > > >>The groupBy attribute's value is a class property, not a table column, > > >>right? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>On 6/6/05, Ersin Er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>>What is the porpose of "groupBy" attribute used in the SQL Mapper doc > > >>>>for > > >>>>"Complex Collection Properties" subject? It says "The important items > > >>>>here > > >>>>are the groupBy="quarter" attribute.." but it doesn't say why. I've > > >>>>tried > > >>>>my own example for 1:M relations and I did not the effect of groupBy > > >>>>attribute clearly. (After a few examples, a new sample doc will come.. > > >>>>:) > > >>>>) > > >>>> > > >>>>Thanks. > > >>>> > > >>>>-- > > >>>>Ersin > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
