No.
Larry
On 2/28/07, Brad Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I could use a row handler to arrange the objects in a situation like
this. One question I have: Do the results of a query with a custom
RowHandler still get cached when using OSCache?
Brad
On 2/22/07, Brad Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> iBatis came back with an error message indicating too many objects were
being returned for executeQueryForObject.
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> On 2/20/07, Brad Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't I have to give unique column names for those identifying the
child data?
> >
> > For example
> >
> > table parentChild
> > some_foreign_key int
> > id int
> > description varchar(64)
> > parent_id int
> >
> >
> > rows
> >
> > id description
parent_id
> > 0 grandparent
null
> > 1 parent 1
0
> > 2 child 1
1
> > 3 child 2
1
> > 4 parent 2
0
> > 5 child 3
4
> > 6 parent 3
0
> > 7 child 4
6
> > 8 child 5
6
> >
> >
> > select
> > p.id as parentId
> > , p.description as parentDesc
> > , p.parent_id as parentAncestorId
> > , c.id as childId
> > , c.description as childDesc
> > , c.parent_id as childAncestorId
> > from
> > parentChild p
> > , parentChild c
> > where
> > p.some_foreign_key = c.some_foreign_key
> > and p.id = c.parent_id
> > and p.id <> c.id
> > order by
> > p.id
> > , c.id
> >
> >
> > should return
> >
> > parentId parentDesc parentAncestorId childId childDesc
childAncestorId
> > 0 grandparent null 1
parent 1 0
> > 0 grandparent null 4
parent 2 0
> > 0 grandparent null 6
parent 3 0
> > 1 parent 1 0 2
child 1 1
> > 1 parent 1 0 3
child 2 1
> > 4 parent 2 0 5
child 3 4
> > 6 parent 3 0 7
child 4 6
> > 6 parent 3 0 8
child 5 6
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/20/07, Clinton Begin < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > i.e. is it a join with a bridge table or not (1:M or M:N)?
> > >
> > > Regardless, I wonder if a recursive result map would work....It might.
> > >
> > > <resultMap id="Node" ... >
> > > <result name="children" ... resultMap="Node"/>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > I don't see any reason why that would cause any problems...perhaps try
it and let us know.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Clinton
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/19/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh...is it a self join?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Clinton
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/19/07, Brad Handy < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I guess I'll have to take a different approach. The depth isn't
set to be a defined level; so if I go more than two levels below the
grandparent, it won't work.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/19/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > You'll need one query with 3 result maps. The result maps will
be chained together with collection properties using the resultMap
attribute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <resultMap id="Child">
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > <resultMap id="Parent">
> > > > > > <result ... resultMap="Child"/>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > <resultMap id="GrandParent">
> > > > > > <result ... resultMap="Parent"/>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > <select ... resultMap="GrandParent">
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The select statement should join the tables together and you may
need to be very explicit with the column names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2/19/07, Brad Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > I have a table which has all of the parent/child relationships
in the same table. I would like to avoid the N+1 selects with this
construct, but it's unclear from the documentation if this can be done.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's say I have the following relationships defined in the
table:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Grand Parent
> > > > > > > Parent 1
> > > > > > > Child 1
> > > > > > > Child 2
> > > > > > > Parent 2
> > > > > > > Parent 3
> > > > > > > Child 3
> > > > > > > Child 4
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When creating the child objects for "Grand Parent", will the
same "Parent*" objects be used to add the children "Child*" objects to the
appropriate parents?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brad
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
