I agree, it is the right time to remove this backward compatibility, as in
future , it can add to more confusion. I am chaning the patch for this. (
i.e. removing List and any related methods). Please give any other review
comments.
Regards,
Amita
On 9/3/07, Adriano Crestani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi everyone,
I wonder if it is really necessary to keep the back compatibility keeping
the List attribute, once the Tuscany DAS Java is still in beta phase of
develpment. What do you think?
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 8/30/07, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Kevin, for
Thanks Kevin, for correcting the example, I actually meant what you have
assumed :)
Also, another question in JDK5 context, the code will be very precise and
type checking/assumptions about types can be avoided in many places in DAS
using JDK5 generics. Other features from JDK5 can be used too.
Below is one of the use cases where user will get some benefit:-
USE CASE:
bigtable{col1, col2,col50}
SIMPLEST CLIENT CODE: WITH NAMED PARAM SUPPORT
Command insertAdhoc = das.createCommand(insert into bigtable values (?, ?,
?...50 times));
insertAdhoc.setParameter(ID, new Integer(6));
I agree with Amita that for clarity is better to let the user set the
parameter name, for all those reasons she has argued on this thread so far.
But, I don't I agree with to use the [1] instead of [2], because it's not a
good practice to define the parameter names on only one string separated by
JPQL, Hibernate ,... have support for named parameters.
Why is RDB DAS going in the other way? If there is a reason for switching
off named parameters, please elaborate, else is it OK to go for JIRA-1462?
Regards,
Amita
On 7/13/07, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I went through [1]
I went through [1] and [2], it talks about removing name attribute from
Parameter
and about generatedKeys. Also saw JIRA-528 on the way. But I could not get
the exact
rational behind removing Name from Parameter (It is definitely not required
by JDBC for sure, but can have some aid in usage
Hi,
A few days ago there was a user question about passing name in Parameter:-
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg19339.html
When checking how Parameters are used in Config, came across the following
points.
There is a difference in Config (SDO) generated Parameter and
The named parameter support was removed from earlier versions of DAS,
here is some previous discussion around the subject [1] See also
tuscany-658. We might need to do further cleanup on the impl, if I
understood correctly.
As for your second suggestion (parameter column types), could you
expose
