Wouldn't it be better to allow for a QueryForObject<T>()? Suppose the
person who creates the query (A) is not the same person who develops the
DAO code (B), should it be mandatory that A knows that mapping X is
actually a subset of n+1?
In my case, I want Order 1 and everything associated to it, so my first
approach was to get an object and not a list. I think it is actually
easy to change this behavior to what I pretend, I made a simple change
to check if it worked, so I just avoid setting the result to
BaseStrategy.SKIP in method RunQueryForObject():
object obj = _resultStrategy.Process(request, ref reader, resultObject);
if (obj != BaseStrategy.SKIP)
result = obj;
I would like to know if you consider adding those changes to the main
source code. However, if you don't agree with me, will probably end up
using the QueryForList again because I wouldn't like to create my own
version :)
Regards,
Bruno Silva
Gilles Bayon wrote:
It's a subset of n+1 and for solve it you must use a
QueryForList<T>()[0] as you have done
On 12/19/06, *Bruno Silva (Cool Advance)* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
For example, if I have two tables Order and OrderDetails, how do I
get all the orders details from order number 1 without using n+1
selects? Isn't this the purpose of the groupBy attribute?
Regards,
Bruno Silva
Gilles Bayon wrote:
It only makes sense to use groupBy attribute with a QueryForList.
--
Cheers,
Gilles
<a href=" http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/6JCP7AORB0LE
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/6JCP7AORB0LE>">Wish List</a>
--
Bruno Silva
Cool Advance - Information Systems
http://www.cooladvance.com/
--
Cheers,
Gilles
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/6JCP7AORB0LE";>Wish List</a>
--
Bruno Silva
Cool Advance - Information Systems
http://www.cooladvance.com/
