Hi Florian,
2014-03-10 19:33 GMT+01:00 Florian Gutmann <[email protected]>: > Hi Lukas, > > sorry for my late answer. Unfortunately I've been quite busy during the > last days. > No worries! > I suppose you already found out how the internals of case classes look > like. > Thanks for your great efforts and investigations! > Yes, they're just like any immutable class you'd write in Java, except for the fact that getters are not called get[PropertyName], but just [propertyName]. Luckily, jOOQ's DefaultRecordMpaper already supports such method naming conventions (as documented here http://www.jooq.org/javadoc/latest/org/jooq/impl/DefaultRecordMapper.html). The problem you were running into is the fact that method / constructor argument names are not available to Java's reflection API. That's a bit of a pity and the reason why this @ConstructorProperties annotation even exists. > Hopefully I will find some time to get another look on scala and jOOQ the > next days. > If so, I will keep you posted. > That's great! Any feedback is very welcome! I'm sure there's a lot of room for improvements even before we implement more formal Scala support. > Maybe we we'll also see each other on the Vienna Scala & Database jOOQ > special edition on April, 7th. > Yes, be sure to join my talk! 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/d/optout.
