Okay, I just reviewed my previous answers and perhaps we need to answer more clearly your questions exactly:
We favour explicit behaviour over implicit. We do so in line with strongly typed languages that we support such as Java and C#. We detest implicit behaviour because it is difficult to maintain and debug. Trust me, your suggestion will not make things easier, it will only make tradeoffs that are equal at best and probably less desirable. We are considering other options for ease of maintenance such as supporting the <generate> tag (like the C# version) and possibly considering inline result maps (which are explicit, but also easy to maintain). We're also looking into a number of tooling options to help with the maintenance of SQL maps. This is my initial answer. My suggestion to you is to add a Wish or New Feature entry into JIRA so that we don't lose track of this. You're the second person to request this. With some more support, we will prioritize it accordingly and you may yet see it in a future release. Cheers, Clinton On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:02:15 -0700, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe we already answered your question...this is the second > thread you've posted on the subject, no? > > Clinton > > > On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:13:31 +1100, Huy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Clinton Begin wrote: > > >>>Looosly typed! > > > > > > > > > That's not loose typing. It's NO typing. > > > > > > The type that's missing isn't what you think it is. The type that's > > > missing is your domain class definition. You don't have types at all. > > > You just have collections of implicitly related information. > > > > > > In any case, I appreciate your heavy, thorough testing of our Map > > > support (seriously actually). ;-) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Clinton > > > > > > > Now that you guys have concluded that map usage is not desirable ( I > > totally agree), is there any chance of answering my original question > > about the flexible resultmaps ? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Huy > > >
