2016-05-28 7:09 GMT+02:00 Devin Austin <[email protected]>: > Now that you put it that way re: "why use daos when it gets redefined > substantially anyway," then yea it doesn't make much sense. I actually am > only using the Dao methods in one or two spots and that's out of pure > laziness. If one wants a DSL for Dao querying, then it makes sense for them > to build it themselves. I think it takes things in too far off in a > different direction than what jOOQ aims to initially provide trying to > support it. > To be fair, the fact that we actually have DAOs might be the source of confusion here. The main reason why we once introduced them was to compete with a (meanwhile in maintenance mode) competitor product and with Spring's repository "pattern". They were so easy to implement, seemed like a low hanging fruit.
The more users were using DAOs, the less it became obvious where DAOs should really go. The problem for jOOQ here is that other than DAOs, jOOQ is extremely open to and unopinionated about all sorts of application designs (transaction models, caching, etc.) But DAOs make strong assumptions about client application design, and possibly the wrong ones, so it's hard to get them "right". > I've responded to your other email, and after I meditate on your response > for a bit, I'll draft up an article and post it with your blessing, and you > can obviously link to it. > You don't need my blessing, we're not censoring anything here :) It would be very interesting to read it in the very way you experienced your jOOQ journey. Best Regards, 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.
