> On Jan 7, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Nikita Timofeev <ntimof...@objectstyle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> would a map be more useful to return than this tuple style approach? Java's
>> collections are a bit clunky, but:
>>
>>
>> Map<PersistentObject, Object[]> result2 = ObjectSelect.query(Artist.class)
>> .columns(Artist.ARTIST_NAME, paintingCountProperty)
>> .having(paintingCountProperty.gt(10L))
>> .select(context);
>>
>
> I'm not sure that Map<> will be a good approach to the problem.
> We actually discussed with Andrus how PersistentObject can be returned
> with columns() method.
> And we decided that it will be better to define explicitly that you
> want PersistentObject in result:
>
> Property<Artist> artistSelf = Property.create("hollowArtist", ?some
> expression?, Artist.class);
> List<Object[]> result2 = ObjectSelect.query(Artist.class)
> .columns(Artist.ARTIST_NAME, artistSelf, paintingCountProperty)
> .having(paintingCountProperty.gt(10L))
> .select(context);
Yeah, at this point we are constrained with the core return formats that are
supported elsewhere in Cayenne (which are already pretty complex). We may (and
will need to) rethink it in the later versions. But for 4.0 I suggest that we
avoid any more redesign that will delay the release. As a reminder the current
format is this:
List<? extends Persistent>
List<DataRow>
List<Object> // a list of scalars
List<Object[]> // a list of Object[] with each array column being
Persistent|DataRow|scalar
Of course any of these can be easily converted to desired representations with
simple functional one-liners by the users.
Andrus
