Sean Legassick wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:23:24AM -0400, Diethelm Guallar, Gonzalo wrote:
> > Should I change anything in my schema definition? The compilation
> > error seems pretty definite to me... Perhaps it is a mistake to
> > have a column named ID? In fact, if I change that column's name
> > to GONZO, the error goes away. Isn't this an artificial limitation?
>
> Yes, which John's patches you can't have a column called 'ID'. Well
> actually you can if you specify a different javaName...
This is what I intended. If you like to use the name ID for column
names in your schema, you should give a javaName attribute for that
column, because objects will have getId/setId methods and these will
conflict with that name.
>
> John, you say in the comments that you see getId() being deprecated - is
> this on the basis that I should be calling getIdAsXXX instead? (know in
> advance what type I'm looking for back).
I never actually deprecated it, but I did ask for objections. I went
directly from an int return value to an Object return type. You can use
the getIdAsInt to return the id as an int, assuming of course that it is
an Object whose toString() method will return a string representing an
int. I should have fixed the comment. Will do ASAP.
John McNally
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
