> 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.
There was another recent thread about parameter maps which asked for the same thing which you thought was a good idea. I'm not sure what the difference is there (in terms of implicit behaviour). (Not sure how to provide link to this other thread) > Trust me, your suggestion will not make things easier, it will > only make tradeoffs that are equal at best and probably less > desirable. I'm sorry to sound distrustful, but if you can give me an example of where it would not be desirable I would accept it. Sorry for soundind like a nagging free wheeling programmer but I reallly believe sqlmap will benefit from this from simplifying the resultmaps. > 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). I really don't like inline result maps because you'd have alot of duplicate inline mappings all over your sqlmap which not only looks messy but would result in quite a maintenance problem IMO. I hope you never get rid of resultmaps (even without what I'm asking for). > We're also looking into a number of tooling > options to help with the maintenance of SQL maps. I guess this would be a way around complex sqlmaps but I love getting my hands dirty and would rather have the maps easy to maintain by hand. > 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. Thanks for the response, I'll do this. > 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 >> > >> >
