2013/11/10 <[email protected]> > Hello Lukas, > > > >> It might not make sense to change the generic <P> type of the DAO to be >> the interface, as the return type e.g. on fetchOne() ( >> http://www.jooq.org/javadoc/latest/org/jooq/DAO.html#fetchOne(org.jooq.Field, >> Z)) should remain the POJO itself. >> >> > Why is that? Shouldn't the implementation class be nowhere in the API? >
There's no compelling reason for this. Both generated DAOs and interfaces were added at the same time: https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/1280 I guess it just hadn't occurred to me to use the interface rather than the POJO as a bound for the DAO's generic <P> type. 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]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
