I posted my question to a scala mailing list. Someone suggested it was
related to a known issue in the compiler, which may be fixed soon. [1]
In the meantime, I'll share the following, which you can import once, and
it solves my original problem. I have a second one for UpdateStep. In
effect it adds another set method to the InsertSetStep class.
class FixedInsertStep[R <: Record](step: InsertSetStep[R]) {
// JT = jooq/java type. ST = scala type
// Allows set to work when there is an implicit conversion from ST to JT
def set[JT, ST](field: org.jooq.Field[JT], scalaThing: ST)(implicitconv: ST
=> JT): InsertSetMoreStep[R] = step.set[JT](field,
conv(scalaThing))
}
implicit def insertStep2Fixed[R <: Record](step: InsertSetStep[R]):
FixedInsertStep[R] = new FixedInsertStep(step)
Rob
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scala-language/g2XHmM7vOl0
On Monday, September 23, 2013 4:34:35 PM UTC-4, Lukas Eder wrote:
>
> Thanks for the update. I wonder if converting Field[Integer] to Field[Int]
> might do the trick? I.e. MODIFIED_BY.asInstanceOf[Field[Int]]. Due to
> Java's generic type erasure, this might actually work (even if it wouldn't
> work in pure Scala). Of course, this is a hack. A better solution might be
> to use set(..., value(i))
>
> I've been talking to a Scala committer tonight. In the long run, an actual
> Scala API seems for a robust jOOQ integration into Scala...
>
> 2013/9/23 Rob Nikander <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 23, 2013 4:35:05 AM UTC-4, Lukas Eder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is indeed weird. From my intuitive (and far from thorough)
>>> understanding, the Scala compiler should infer [T] from the first method
>>> argument, just like the Java compile does. But I wouldn't be surprised if
>>> this behaviour differs significantly, as soon as implicit conversions
>>> apply. Are you using org.jooq.scala.Conversions? What would happen to this
>>> statement, if you removed it? In particular these conversions:
>>>
>>
>> I removed my import of Conversions._, but it had no effect. It does infer
>> it when the types match perfectly. If I find out why the implicit
>> int2Integer is not applied, I'll post an update here. If I can help it,
>> I don't want to use the more verbose: set[Integer](...), or set(...,
>> int2Integer(i)).
>>
>> 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] <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.
