Sounds good! It definitely isn't an urgent feature! On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 22:21:28 UTC+8, Lukas Eder wrote: > > I've given this some more thought. > > I won't implement this immediately. I'd prefer to generally review such > API usage in jOOQ 4.0, as there are other methods where the void / this > discussion might apply. So, if this is done in a greater context, there is > less risk of introducing a subtle backwards-compatibility annoyance, as the > change is more "expected" > > Cheers > Lukas > > > 2013/9/16 Lukas Eder <[email protected] <javascript:>> > >> ;-) >> >> I'm still assessing whether such a change is eligible for a minor >> release, or whether it could be considered breaking the API according to >> the rules of semantic versioning (http://semver.org). I'm not worried >> about implementations, but about calling the method, e.g. via reflection. I >> have a slight inclination towards allowing that change to go into jOOQ 3.2 >> >> What do others think? >> >> Cheers >> Lukas >> >> 2013/9/15 Ryan How <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> >>> Thanks Lukas! Your use case sounds much more sensible than mine :) >>> >>> On Thursday, 12 September 2013 05:51:34 UTC+8, Lukas Eder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/9/11 Ryan How <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Just a very simple request. I haven't looked thoroughly, but >>>>> Record.from seems to return void. If it returned itself then it would >>>>> eliminate a couple of lines of code here and there for me. >>>>> >>>>> eg. >>>>> >>>>> myMethod(new MyRecord().from(pojo)); >>>>> >>>>> I know it's only really minor, and it's an expensive operation, and I >>>>> should probably be doing it in another way lots of the time, and I don't >>>>> usually like doing inline new or passing method results to methods >>>>> inline, >>>>> but it would make the odd bit of a code a bit more compact :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> What a nicely expressed plea :-) >>>> >>>> Changing void to something "more meaningful" can only be done once per >>>> method. In this case, it certainly appears useful, specifically because >>>> more specific from() methods could be chained: >>>> http://www.jooq.org/javadoc/**latest/org/jooq/Record.html#**from(java.lang.Object, >>>> >>>> org.jooq.Field...)<http://www.jooq.org/javadoc/latest/org/jooq/Record.html#from(java.lang.Object,+org.jooq.Field...)> >>>> >>>> >>>> record.from(o1, FIELD_1) >>>> >>>> .from(o2, FIELD_2) >>>> >>>> >>>> I have registered #2740 >>>> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/**issues/2740<https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/2740> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Lukas >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
