Perfect.
--- Original Message ---
From: Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com
Sent: 24 November 2013 05:26
To: clojure@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: java.jdbc DSLs (java.jdbc.sql / java.jdbc.ddl)
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Keith Irwin ke...@devtrope.com wrote:
Personally, the DSL doesn’t
On Nov 22, 2013 4:09 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a solution here is for me to
put it in a library, on Clojars, under a different name and let folks
migrate to that as an interim solution (i.e., identical API so folks
would just update project.clj and update some ns
As Dave said, we can move to honeysql without too much trouble. However, it
would be extremely useful to move the sql namespace to a separate library
as an interim solution.
Out of curiosity, what exactly does entities do? It isn't immediately
obvious from the document string.
On Friday,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Alexander Hudek alexan...@hudek.org wrote:
As Dave said, we can move to honeysql without too much trouble. However, it
would be extremely useful to move the sql namespace to a separate library as
an interim solution.
OK, I'll get that done soon.
Out of
Sean—
Personally, the DSL doesn’t bother me at all. (Just a data point.) I get where
you’re going with it, and support the idea, FWIW, but if it were gone, I
wouldn’t notice. My needs are 1) so simple, strings work, or 2) so complicated,
a (or any) DSL is just extra headache. (Reading them out
Parallel (and conjoined) API docs would solve ALL my (admittedly shallow)
problems, actually, but I wonder if it would remove some confusion for
others new to the lib and Clojure?
Definitely. I have only just started using Clojure and the java.jdbc
library and have found this a (minor) pain
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Keith Irwin ke...@devtrope.com wrote:
Personally, the DSL doesn’t bother me at all. (Just a data point.) I get
where you’re going with it, and support the idea, FWIW, but if it were gone,
I wouldn’t notice. My needs are 1) so simple, strings work, or 2) so
We use select several times in one module; it wouldn't be hard to just copy
and paste the function somewhere. Now, you could drop DSL and call it
optional utility functions not to be used when deemed unhelpful, or
whatever. Given your goals stated goals that code isn't bad at all.
On
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Armando Blancas abm221...@gmail.com wrote:
We use select several times in one module; it wouldn't be hard to just copy
and paste the function somewhere.
Technically, copying it into your code means absorbing some EPL code
and copyright © 2013 Sean Corfield stuff
Didn't think of that. I can just rewrite those simple select calls with
parameterized raw SQL, which is our preferred way of using the API.
On Friday, November 22, 2013 2:09:19 PM UTC-8, Sean Corfield wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Armando Blancas
abm2...@gmail.comjavascript:
How much impact would it have on you, Alexander, if the java.jdbc.sql
namespace went away?
I work for Alex and I can say that it wouldn't be such a big deal since
we are already including honeysql, and I would simply swap the built-in
DSL for that where necessary.
I can't speak for him but
Is anyone using the java.jdbc.sql namespace? (besides World Singles :)
We are using it but not the DDL. We also use honeysql in places where
jdbc.sql cannot express the query.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this
I spent this afternoon removing use of java.jdbc.sql from World Singles’ code
base to see how much work it would be. The worst part for us was how much we
relied on the naming strategy convenience macros (especially entities, since it
flows :entities through all the DSL constructs).
How much
Hi Sean,
First - I hugely appreciate the work you have done and use java.jdbc daily.
However, as a complete newbie I found the included DSL very unhelpful. The
java.jdbc API is very wide and navigating it was hard, Particularly as it
was in a transition from using bound *db* to not, so
I agree with Colin and had a similar experience.
Even if you say it's completely optional, people will first try it because
it's already included. I think honeysql is good and also not any harder to
use than the included DSL. It's concept is very simple and clear. Actually,
your DSL is magical
Thanks for the explanation Sean. That was helpful.
Alex
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:05:34 PM UTC-5, Sean Corfield wrote:
In response to the (very reasonable) question from Alex Hudek in a
recent thread, here are some of my responses to questions that have
arisen about the inclusion of
Thank you both - that's excellent feedback!
I certainly don't want the library to cause confusion so maybe
hiding/removing the DSLs would be the best path going forward.
Right now, a handful of the DSL functions are used to generate the SQL
behind delete!, insert! and update! as well as the core
On 20 November 2013 22:25, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anyone using the java.jdbc.sql namespace? (besides World Singles :)
Only the 'where' function, in a few places.
Ray.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To
In response to the (very reasonable) question from Alex Hudek in a
recent thread, here are some of my responses to questions that have
arisen about the inclusion of the minimal DSLs in the java.jdbc
contrib library:
Just wondering if the intention is to make the DSL the primary way to work
with
19 matches
Mail list logo
