Hello. I've been thinking about possible support for @Table
and @Column(table = "") annotations in jOOQ. At my work we could use this
feature since it's often necessary to join many tables in a query and fetch
several fields from different tables with the same naming. Currently we
name conflicting columns in a query with different aliases, but for me it's
a quite dirty solution (personally I don't like aliases :) ).
I've written some code in my fork and made use for @Column(table =
"tableName", name = "id"), but I've faced with a problem that if developer
doesn't specify table property for one of conflicting fields in POJO, then
the result of mapping is kinda unpredictable. It's not a problem in JPA
implementations because there is always 'default' table - a table of the
entity. But it's not a case for jOOQ where there is no any 'default' tables
for POJOs.
Some examples:
public class User {
@Column(name = "id", table = "user")
private Long id;
@Column(name = "id", table = "category")
private Long secondId;
}
In this example mapping is good - id will be from USER table and secondId
from CATEGORY table.
But in this example (developer accidentally forgot to specify table for the
first conflicting field) mapping result is kinda unpredictable for the ID
field:
public class User {
@Column(name = "id")
private Long id;
@Column(name = "id", table = "category")
private Long secondId;
}
Behavior in this example will be just like in current version of jOOQ with
conflicting column names.
So here is a question: is correct using of @Table and @Column(table = "")
annotations even possible in jOOQ since there is no mandatory entities with
default tables?
--
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.
