> Thomas Vandahl said: > > Greg Monroe wrote: > > > Additionally, the generated record objects could make use > > of this new base class to support things like isNull() on > > primitives. We could also use this to track modified and > > unmodified column values, which would be very useful (e.g. > > updating tables without primary keys). > > I'd throw primitives away completely. There is no advantage > in keeping them. Especially with JDK 1.5.
I think there's still benefit in having record objects with primitive get/set field access methods. They are like the static Peer methods, not the best way to do things, but they make coding easier. But the underlying storage could be Object based with conversion occuring in the generated field methods. Even with these, the underlying objects could still be access via the getBy/setBy methods. Of course, there would be a slight performance hit since the conversion takes place each time the method is called rather than at population time. Duke CE Privacy Statement Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you may not rely on the contents of this email or any attachments, and we ask that you please not read, copy or retransmit this communication, but reply to the sender and destroy the email, its contents, and all copies thereof immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
