Other users find the jOOQ API already bloated with types. Adding a type just for exception convenience seems a bit of overkill to me...
Am Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2012 schrieb digulla <[email protected]>: > Am Montag, 11. Juni 2012 21:16:56 UTC+2 schrieb Gili Tzabari: >> >> What about committing transactions? If I have to invoke Factory.getConnection().commit() after the JOOQ code I still end up having to catch both DataAccessException and SQLException. Couldn't Factory.getConnection() return a wrapper object? > > Not really. There is no sane way to extend most JDBC classes in Java code - compilation will break with different versions of Java, for example. > I would prefer if "new Factory()" would accept a wrapper object instead; that would ease the migration path to new versions of JDBC and make the API cleaner. If this wrapper would have this API: > > getConnection() // get underlying JDBC connection > commit() // commit the current transaction > rollback() // ... > then such things would be possible.
