Hi
As mentioned earlier, I really like the flexibility that .Net MicroORMs
offer. This could be offered by JOOQ as well with more unmapper support:
https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/5896
Currently I get by with some custom extensions:
ColumnValueMap valMapper = ColumnValueMap.*create*("OWNERSYS.OWNER")
.add(*field*("ID"), generatedSeqKey)
.add(*field*("ENTITY_ID"), owner.getEntityId().Value)
.add(*field*("NAME"), owner.getName())
.add(*field*("OFFICIAL_SOURCE"),
owner.getOfficialSourceType().getValue())
.add(*field*("BUSINESS_TYPE_ID"),
owner.getBusinessType().getValue())
.add(*field*("OWNER_TYPE_ID"), owner.getOwnerType().getValue())
.add(*field*("VALID_FROM"), new
Timestamp(owner.getValidFrom().toInstant().getEpochSecond()
* 1000L))
.add(*field*("VALID_UNTIL"), new
Timestamp(owner.getValidUntil().toInstant().getEpochSecond()
* 1000L))
.add(*field*("REGISTERED_TIME"), new
Timestamp(owner.getRegisteredTime().toInstant().getEpochSecond()
* 1000L));
ctx.insertInto(*table*(valMapper.Table),
valMapper.getColumns()).values(valMapper.getValues()).execute();
..
This is almost identical to what is already supported by JOOQ, the
difference is that you get more compact code by mapping column and value in
a single .add() method, thus the expression will become more compact, which
again increases readability.
An example of using the ColumnFieldMapper on simple types:
..
Contact c = new Contact(0,"*t_at_t.no*", "99221144", "Mr Anonymous");
ColumnFieldMap<Contact> mapper = new ColumnFieldMap<>(c, "OWNERSYS.CONTACT")
;
mapper.add(*field*("ID"), "Id").add(*field*("EMAIL"), "Email").add(*field*(
"PHONE"), "Phone").add(*field*("NAME"), "Name");
ctx.insertInto(*table*(mapper.Table),
mapper.getColumns()).values(mapper.getValues()).execute();
Having support for more unmapper features in JOOQ would be great, and it is
ultra flexible.
Thanks,
Steinar.
P.S I would not mind if the DAO support was removed.
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 2:16:44 PM UTC+2, Lukas Eder wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> Part of jOOQ's success is its incredible amount of convenience methods
> that help reduce the boiler plate code at your side. We do this with
> massive overloading of API, for instance, when you work with fetch(), you
> may have noticed how many different types of fetch() there are in jOOQ.
>
> Just now, I have added yet another convenience method. A Converter
> constructor:
> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/5398
>
> It looks like this:
>
> static <T, U> Converter<T, U> of(
> Class<T> fromType,
> Class<U> toType,
> Function<? super T, ? extends U> from,
> Function<? super U, ? extends T> to
> ) { ... }
>
> And also:
>
> static <T, U> Converter<T, U> ofNullable(
> Class<T> fromType,
> Class<U> toType,
> Function<? super T, ? extends U> from,
> Function<? super U, ? extends T> to
> ) {
> return of(
> fromType,
> toType,
> t -> t == null ? null : from.apply(t),
> u -> u == null ? null : to.apply(u)
> );
> }
>
>
> The above allows for creating simple ad-hoc, one-liner converters, such as:
>
> Converter<String, Integer> converter =
> Converter.ofNullable(String.class, Integer.class, Integer::parseInt,
> Object::toString);
>
> What's your biggest "itch" in the jOOQ API, which jOOQ could "scratch", or
> rather, make go away by adding new convenience API?
>
> All ideas welcome!
> 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.
