> > Sean, do you wish to coordinate with me to help you in any way
> > I can, or would you rather go solo with it until you have something
> > showable?
>
> Well, I didn't really meant to usurp you - just suddenly
> realised both how
> it would be useful to me in my current project and how I
> would do it... so
> I went ahead. Great idea - thanks.
No problem, and no hard feelings or anything. In fact, it is
great to have this stuff done by someone more knowledgeable... 8)
> There's a patch below that I believe should do it, if
> everyone's happy with
> it I'll check it in. (I decided on getByName not
> getFieldByName because I
> think 'getXXX' already implies field retrieval). I've also
> gone for the
> same property naming convention as velocity (i.e. init caps).
[I don't know if this syntax is valid] What would you prefer?
$record.ByName("code")
or
$record.FieldByName("code")
> > if (name.equals("${col.JavaName}"))
Questions:
* You are assuming the template writer will want to
access columns by their Java name, not their DB name.
I'm just pointing this out, I don't really know what
is the best way to do it.
* Should this be a caseless comparison? Ok, for Java names
I guess not, but for DB names?
* Should there be two methods?
getFieldByJavaName
getFieldByDBName
and have getFieldByName delegate on one of them? Or would
this be overkill?
> Sean Legassick
Your patch looks great. +1.
> Hombre soy, nada humano me puede ser ajeno
Good Spanish!
--
Gonzalo A. Diethelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
