Well it's official - there's no need to fear reflection...
I have a battery of almost 600 tests I run with Abator. I ran the tests repeatedly with and without javaType specified and it made NO DIFFERENCE in the time to run the tests (less than hundredths of a second on a 1 1/2 minute test run with the CPU pegged the whole time). Running so many tests just about caused my laptop to melt down :)
I think there's no need to specify javaType with Abator.
Jeff Butler
On 8/17/06, Mississippi John Hurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, for the javaType, I thought if it generated that, it'd reduce reflection needed.
On 8/17/06, Jeff Butler < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:Hmmm...jdbcType is needed. Some of the tests fail if I remove it (columns that are JDBC DATE or TIME are problems).I'm interested to see if adding the javaType makes any difference - I'm thinking maybe a slight performance difference. I'll try it and let you know.Jeff Butler
On 8/17/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:Not now. Is there some reason you need this? I think that the jdbcType is extraneous in these mappings too - best to let iBATIS do the type magic that it does so well.With the next version of Abator you'll be able to specify a type handler if you need to override the iBATIS default behavior.Jeff Butler
On 8/17/06, Mississippi John Hurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:Hi,
Is it possible to get Abator to generate the "javaType=" clause in the sql.xml resultmap definitions? Thanks.
