Thanks for the information Lukas. Rollback would be an extreme situation I think, done by disconnecting the MySQL secondary from the primary, then running the migration on the primary, then if something goes wrong, restore from the secondary.
The more typical situation would be: 1. Deploy Java code that is compatible with the old version of the schema and the new schema 2. Run the migration 3. Deploy Java code that removed the compatibility with the old version of the schema. The tricky part with JOOQ and code generation is step number 1 I think. I’m not quite sure how I could use code generation in JOOQ with that type of situation. On Mar 23, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Joseph Pachod <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi No worries for the CC'ing. For migrating up and down, you'll have to find a proper tool for it (https://flywaydb.org/ doesn't support migrating down AFAIK). On my side, just for migrating upwards, and needing all previous migrations since we deploy on premises a On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Lukas Eder <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Patrick, (Joseph, I hope you don't mind me CC'ing you for this discussion) Thank you very much for your e-mail. That is a very interesting idea, and we've actually had a very similar discussion here on the user group, just recently: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jooq-user/I9iLbMQNN8o/Zrs-fi2bCQAJ I'm curious myself how Joseph Pachod (who was starting that discussion) finally managed to implement type safe versioning of their database with jOOQ. In any case, I don't think it's a good idea to edit generated classes manually. You don't know what kind of change we'll be implementing to support new features in the next jOOQ minor release... One approach that has served me well in the past was to avoid working with tables directly, but work with views instead, in order to hide (some) database migration details from the client. If you have any specific ideas / concerns, I'm very happy to discuss (and hopefully, others might chime in, too) Best, Lukas 2016-03-21 23:22 GMT+01:00 Patrick Armstrong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: Hi there, I'm looking at using JOOQ for a project, and am curious about the idea of using the code generation once per new table, then keeping these objects updated manually afterwards as the database schema evolves. We are planning on doing migrations without downtime, so we'd like the flexibility to be able to rollback if there's a problem with an update, so code needs to be able to work with a pre-migration and post-migration database. What do you think about that idea? Would it be better to just forgo the code generation features in my use case? --patrick -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. 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.
