2015-08-15 19:30 GMT+02:00 <[email protected]>: > Hi Lukas, > > Yeah, I just assumed because there no doubt a bunch of code out there with > an ambiguous query that currently works only because the first match is the > one they wanted. >
Yep. As always when an API tries to be clever :) > Introducing an exception for that case would break that code. I can > appreciate the aversion to options but from the outside it looks like a > choice between keeping the current (sort of dangerous) behavior or breaking > compatibility with existing users. Another option you might consider - > logging a warning for ambiguous queries. Wouldn't break compatibility but > would allow people to clean up their queries. > That's a good idea for a gentle move towards the breaking change, which could then be implemented in a major release. I have created: - https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/4476 (warning) - https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/4477 (exception) > Thanks for all the great work on the library so far by way, It's brilliant > Thank you very much for your nice words! 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.
