Thanks Lukas. If I added a custom convertor, would that just impact the `Record` setters and getters or would that also update the fields in the TableImpls? If it did the later as well I could see where that might make even selects more difficult.
Could you give me a simple example of where it makes it more difficult? On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:52:45 AM UTC-5, Lukas Eder wrote: > > Hello, > > Yes, you can implement a Converter for this and hook your Converter into > the code generator: > http://www.jooq.org/doc/latest/manual/code-generation/custom-data-types > > It will be a bit of work as there is no way to match all nullable columns > in the code generator configuration - you'll have to match them all by > name. Currently, we do not have any out-of-the-box support for this, just > as we do not have Option support in the jOOQ Scala integration. One of the > main reasons is the fact that the Option(al) type is rather difficult to > enforce in the context of: > > - outer joins > - functions > - grouping sets > - unions > - etc. > > Hope this helps, > Lukas > > 2015-09-28 22:20 GMT+02:00 <[email protected] <javascript:>>: > >> Is it currently possible to generate Record classes that return a java 8 >> Optional type for nullable fields? >> >> Thanks, >> James >> >> -- >> 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/d/optout. >> > > -- 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.
