Hi Greg, > I think we would prefer to have the field getters/setters available in > the interface. I also think we would prefer to have our own defined > interface to completely separate out jOOQ from our internal models.
Then, you should read up on how to use POJO's with jOOQ. Essentially, you can fetch records "into" your own custom data types by using ResultQuery.fetchInto(Class), Result.into(Class) or Record.into(Class). See some relevant Javadoc here: http://www.jooq.org/javadoc/latest/org/jooq/Record.html#into%28java.lang.Class%29 Mapping onto POJOs is done using JPA annotations (if present) or using naming conventions on available fields / getters / setters. Note, jOOQ can generate those POJO's for you having them implement your custom interfaces using what I had described in my previous e-mail: >> >> Note that you can already let jOOQ generate "implements" clauses in >> >> generated classes, as documented >> >> here:http://www.jooq.org/manual/META/AdvancedConfiguration/ >> >> >> Using a custom generator strategy, you can define >> >> getJavaClassImplements() for every generated artefact. On the other hand, I think that generating those interfaces for POJO's and Records could be useful for others, too. So I'll consider implementing #1463 in the next release: https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/jooq/ticket/1463 Cheers Lukas
