On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:33:07 AM UTC-4, Lukas Eder wrote:
>
>
> 2013/9/24 Rob Nikander <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>
>> BTW, I've posted a few things here recently. Thank you for this library.
>> For me it's a lot more usable than Slick for everyday work.
>>
> Thanks for this feedback. I'm curious, how would you describe the pros and
> cons of each library?
>
>
Some of this is just my particular situation on a current project. 1. There
is a lot of existing SQL and Java code. jOOQ allows me to improve the
situation without completely switching paradigms. 2. You have to pay for
their SQL server implementation now. I didn't ask the price. I didn't
choose to to use MS-SQL on this project, so I don't agree with their idea
that anyone who needs the driver must have more money to throw around.
Even on a fresh project I think I'd use jOOQ or something similar in Scala.
I appreciate the purity in Slick, eg: a filter is always a filter, not a
"where" or "having" depending on it's location. But lately I'm focused on
"getting things done", and the fact that I just got around a bug by
throwing in some raw SQL: field("FOO + ?", String.class, strArg) -- that
graceful degradation is a huge deal. I admit I don't know much about Slick,
but I didn't see this kind of thing in my experiments with it.
Rob
--
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.
