Hi Lukas, A generated method to provide a type safe insert statement including all the table columns would be extremely useful for us. We typically use records to do inserts but for a few high volume processes we are batching raw inserts. We found this significantly faster than instantiating records and using dsl.batchInsert(). The issue with this is that as our schema evolves it's easy to leave columns out of the insert. So for instance if I have a table customer, it would be great to be able to do something like
Tables.CUSTOMER.insert(name, street1, ...) On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 12:47:59 PM UTC-5, Samir Faci wrote: > > Hi Lukas, > > > Sorry for the long delay in response. We've used the JPA with default > mapper to load data into both Records and POJOs and having the ability to > go back and forth or even in one direction (Records -> Pojos) would be > great. > > Thanks for opening up the ticket. > > Our usual cases tends to be one of 3 scenarios. > > LoadInto: > - Generated Records.class > - Generated POJO .class > - HandRolled POJO due to data being returned and modeled differently > then the DB. > > I would assume that 1 and 2 is somewhat doable. 3rd Item is probably not > feasible, but if there was some mechanism that would allows us to go from > any of these entities back and forth that'd be great. > > Even the HandRolled POJOs. end of the day we end up with > > Object.fieldName maps to GeneratedPojo.fieldName which corresponds to > GeneratedRecord.fieldName. > > having the ability to say take a List of hand rolled POJO and extrapolate > a List of records we can INSERT/UPDATE depending on use case would be very > useful to us. > > that being said, this is "our" needs, it doesn't necessarily make sense > for Jooq in general. Just passing on our use case in case it resonates > with others and feedback was requested. :) > > > -- > Samir > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Lukas Eder <lukas...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Hi Samir, >> >> I have registered a feature request to generate a mapper() onto generated >> TableRecords: >> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/5412 >> >> That's a low hanging fruit. Additional features are certainly possible, >> but need more discussion, I think. >> >> Best Regards, >> Lukas >> >> >> 2016-07-07 10:35 GMT+02:00 Lukas Eder <lukas...@gmail.com <javascript:>>: >> >>> Hi Samir, >>> >>> 2016-07-07 4:50 GMT+02:00 Samir Faci <sa...@esamir.com <javascript:>>: >>> >>>> 1. One conversion that would be useful to have is the ability to >>>> convert from POJOs to Records and vice versa. >>>> >>>> On occasion I need to roll out my own POJO because our data is >>>> represented different at the service layer then how the data >>>> is actually stored, but I find myself using the autogenerated records >>>> and POJOs a good bit. It would be nice if there was an easy way to going >>>> from say: >>>> >>>> TableNameRecord --> TableName (pojo) and back. >>>> >>> >>> Do I get you right, you'd like a hard-coded method in the generated >>> TableNameRecord that does the mapping for the generated POJO? E.g. >>> >>> >>> class TableNameRecord extends UpdatableRecordImpl { >>> ... >>> public TableNamePojo intoTableNamePojo() { ... } >>> public void fromTableNamePojo(TableNamePojo pojo) { ... } >>> } >>> >>> >>> Would this really help? I can definitely see the into() method. The >>> from() method doesn't seem to add that much value over the existing >>> Record.from(Object) method, except, perhaps, some additional type safety? >>> >>> >>>> It varies on my use case but I tend to usually fetchInto( . class) and >>>> most of the the class passed in is either the record or pojo that was >>>> generated by jooq. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, I see, that's a different story, though. The problem is that >>> fetchInto(Class) is called on a ResultQuery<R>, where R is a generic type. >>> It will be a bit harder to find a solution along the lines of what you're >>> looking for. Perhaps, we could generate a RecordMapper<TableNameRecord, >>> TableNamePojo>, which would add some type safety over passing the class >>> literal (and it could be implemented more optimally). That RecordMapper >>> could then be made available from TableNameRecord: >>> >>> class TableNameRecord extends UpdatableRecordImpl { >>> ... >>> >>> public static RecordMapper<TableNameRecord, TableNamePojo> mapper() >>> { ... } >>> >>> } >>> >>> >>> This could then be used as such: >>> >>> dsl.select(...).from(...).fetchInto(TableNameRecord.mapper()) >>> >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >> >> -- >> 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 jooq-user+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Thank you > Samir Faci > https://keybase.io/csgeek > -- 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 jooq-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
