On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:07:43 +1100, Huy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Meadors wrote:
Just curious: If you can have null values, why are you using primitive values.
Well primitives are easier to work with in Java IMO.
Not if you need null support. :-)
Which do you need more? Null support or ease of use? You do not get both, and not even the autoboxing in jdk5 will fix that.
I see your point, but sometimes we can't control databases designed 20 years ago which allowed nulls in integer columns when such a thing was not desirable. I guess it's not a major issue, just something a bit different that we have to worry about when dealing with primitives. Maybe there can be some global configuration to not assign nulls to primitive properties so that we can default these in our beans. We have to default them anyway to something in the beans so why do we have to do it in two places. Of course then we'd need something to specify when nulls are not wanted on certain columns. Ahhh....sounds like I'm going in circles.
You do realize that even if we do not call the setter, the property holder will be set to 0 anyway, right?
Which I guess is the point, so why do we have to specify this in sqlmap.
So we do not have to force that decision upon other users of the framework.
IMO, this is not what I would expect from the tool. If there is a null in a field that cannot accurately represent null values, I want an error. I want a big, nasty error that makes the lights in the server room flicker, and sets off alarms. The *last* thing I want is for my framework to assume that it is supposed to be zero, and just happily chug along.
Fair enough, but nulls in number columns always has caused me more problems then zeros in number columns.
Huy
