> Why not [...] Yes, that's what I meant by: "// isNull could also translate to type == null && value == null, though"
I haven't thought this through though. >> setter.set(stmt, nextIndex(), value); >> >> So I think in this case, a bit of imperative programming with lots of >> comments beats OO design. > > Why don't you compile the JDBC type (an int) into the generated fields? That > would replace the if() forest with either a switch or an array lookup. Fields already have an associated org.jooq.DataType, which is more powerful than the JDBC type. Yet, this DataType is not available at all locations. In any case, the question of how to map Class/SQLDialect combinations is not resolved
