I just wrote a little unit test for that. It totally works. Here's the
ResultMap to make sure we're talking about the same thing....
<resultMap id="categoryResultMap" class="testdomain.Category"
groupBy="categoryId">
<result property="categoryId" column="catid"/>
<result property="name" column="catname"/>
<result property="description" column="catdescn"/>
* <result property="productList" resultMap="productResultMap"/>
<result property="itemList" resultMap="itemResultMap"/>*
</resultMap>
<resultMap id="productResultMap" class="testdomain.Product" >
<result property="productId" column="productid"/>
<result property="categoryId" column="category"/>
<result property="name" column="prodname"/>
<result property="description" column="proddescn"/>
</resultMap>
<resultMap id="itemResultMap" 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>
Clinton
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 4. groupBy is gone completely. The <collection> element combined with
> the
> > ID element now work together to achieve this. I agree the old
> > implementation was annoying. What do you mean by multiple independent
> > lists? Does that not work now?
>
> I *think* he's referring to something like where you have people that
> have cats and dogs.
>
> Say you have a PERSON table, a DOG table, and a CAT table.
>
> If DOG has a person_id and CAT has a person_id, and you join the three
> tables, you can't get a list of person objects each with the correct
> list of dog and cat objects.
>
> I've not really understood the desire for this one, because you can't
> really do that effectively with SQL, either - so instead of 1+N
> selects, you do one select that returns m*n*o records. So for 10
> people with 10 dogs and 10 cats, you get 1000 records instead of the
> 200 that 1+N selects get you.
>
> Rick has whined about that one for years. ;-)
>
> Larry
>
