Hi
> Just an idea: If you're using jOOQ for migrations with Flyway, the jOOQ
> code is really also just a text file (*.java). Taking the checksum of that
> would be easy. If you could manage to compile (and run) the jOOQ code after
> taking the checksum, that might work around your issue, no? Perhaps, that
> might be something worth requesting from Flyway as an enhancement. The
> ability to provide programmatic migrations in source format, letting Flyway
> compile the migration using the JDK's built-in compiler...
>
> Or, we build that on our end and ship a jOOQ-migrations module based on
> Flyway, as I've mentioned before.
>
> Tracking the *'.java is going to have to many complications as it is
likely to be changed during the development life cycle due to formatting
and the made rush to add documentation/comments at some point when someone
remembers to turn the metric scoring system on :) Also tracking the source
does not catch my previous example where the SQL statement changes over
time because JOOQ has gained capabilities to support new features (BIT vs
BOOL) which will result in no java changes, but will result in different
DDL.
I've raised the issue with Flyway as a question on stackexchange as that
seems to be their primary way of communicating. Going forwards I would much
prefer to see Flyway become JOOQ friendly, rather than you having to fork
it for your own needs.
>
> You could do something along the lines of:
>
> Query query = create.createTable("...").column("...").column("...");
> Runnable[] result = {
> () -> query.hashCode(),
> () -> query.getSQL(),
> () -> query.execute()
> };
>
>
> And then work on that. Not sure if that responds to your concerns,
> though...?
>
Please, I was not raising any concerns, rather just the issue of trying to
fit the fluent interface into a new edge case role which it was never
designed for. My own working knowledge is also a major factor here as I'm
not a development, my focus is networks, databases and infrastructure. To
me method chaining and fluent interfaces are new and shiny (then again they
have only really been talked about for just the last 10 years or so), so
moving into lambda expressions means I've got some catching up to do.
--
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.
