Re: sql.withBatch(batchSize, query) {} does not give performance benefit. Inserts rows one by one in database

Sorry, the embedded code inside the tags disappeared in the final mail. So, edited the original post with with tags...! -- Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html

Re: About raw string and enhanced try-with-resource

On 16.05.2018 23:20, MG wrote: On 15.05.2018 10:42, Jochen Theodorou wrote: I think we really have a big problem with our strings... we have much too many ways to express them and I think we really have to slim down here. I agree with that - any concrete ideas on what syntax you imagine

Re: [VOTE] Support Java-like array

On 16.05.2018 23:17, MG wrote: [...] Btw, Jochen, can you give an example for using this syntax for array type annotation arguments, which you mentioned a week or so back ? basically two variants: @Target({ METHOD, FIELD, ANNOTATION_TYPE, CONSTRUCTOR, PARAMETER }) or maybe:

Re: Java object conversion using ConfigSlurper

Non-PMC +1 on using getAs, because I feel the semantics are sufficiently different, and trying to retrofit this might lead to unexpected edge cases now and/or headaches in the future. What do others think ? Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: adithyank Datum:

Re: Java object conversion using ConfigSlurper

Non-PMC +1 on using getAs, because I feel the semantics are sufficiently different, and trying to retrofit this might lead to unexpected edge cases now and/or headaches in the future. What do others think ? Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: adithyank Datum:

Re: Java object conversion using ConfigSlurper

I guess it boils down to whether the semantics/intention of getAs is different from asType or not (no Groovy magic expected ?...) Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: adithyank Datum: 16.05.18 12:52 (GMT+01:00) An: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org Betreff: Re:

Re: Java object conversion using ConfigSlurper

I guess it boils down to whether the semantics/intention of getAs is different from asType or not (no Groovy magic expected ?...) Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: adithyank Datum: 16.05.18 12:52 (GMT+01:00) An: d...@groovy.incubator.apache.org Betreff: Re:

Re: Java object conversion using ConfigSlurper

Hi Adithyank > On 16 May 2018, at 12.52, adithyank wrote: > > Hi Mario Garcia, > > Groovy already has Map coercion feature with which the methods of any class > can be delegated to the closures in Map. This uses `as` keyword. > > If we implement `asType(Class)` in

Re: Java object conversion using ConfigSlurper

Hi Mario Garcia, Groovy already has Map coercion feature with which the methods of any class can be delegated to the closures in Map. This uses `as` keyword. If we implement `asType(Class)` in `ConfigObject` (ConfigObject already implements Map), some of the functionalities of existing coercion

Re: Java object conversion using ConfigSlurper

Hi, good work :) It seems a nice feature, but I'm wondering why having two different methods doing the same ? asType and getAs. - I think is always better to avoid having two methods doing the same, specially when asType can be called both directly or via sugar syntax. - I also think