Hi Shyam, Don't worry, no offense taken here! I know that things can get frustrating when they don't appear to work as expected.
2014-02-03 Sha <[email protected]>: > Thanks you for your reply Lukas, > Sorry Lukas, if i said anything which makes you feel bad. > I am sure JOOQ would provide all missing features in future. I knew our > business scenarios would be complex as many other enterprise scenarios. > > The only thing is, I have given timelines by my senior managers to finish > POC using JOOQ. > So if I cant do now , what can I show for them ? and how can convince them > about JOOQ? > Well, the questions you should ask yourself are these: 1. What makes you think jOOQ is the right tool for the job in the first place? 2. Do your senior manager worry about 1-2 details such as a missing clause (It's implemented on GitHub master, btw: https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/1018. Due for jOOQ 3.3)? Or will they worry about the big picture? 3. What are the alternatives? In our opinion, there is no typesafe SQL API that can handle SQL statement complexity to the same extent as jOOQ If all fails, you might still try to present them with this manager-compatible presentation of ours: http://www.jooq.org/why-jOOQ.pdf > Probably we need to come back again to JOOQ after some more time when > these missing features are incorporated. > Sure. Building upon jOOQ is not an easy choice. It takes time to be sure if you're making the right steps. If you feel anything else is missing, you might also give us a list of priorities, so we can see if we can slightly the roadmap. > At least some workarounds there to show test scenarios meanwhile , it > would be great. > Your efforts and support is wonderful. > And that will stay this way :-) 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.
