Yes, please keep backwards compatability within minor releases. -----Original Message----- From: Clinton Begin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 1/30/2008 6:11 PM To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Exit out of rowHandler Hehe...
Well, considering how much effort I've always put into iBATIS being backward compatible, why break tradition now? ;-) We can use an adapter and create a new RowHandler interface. iBATIS 3.0 can merge them into one...as it won't be fully backward compatible anyway. Clinton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Meadors Sent: January-30-08 4:43 PM To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org Subject: Re: Exit out of rowHandler Meh, it'll break compatibility, but it adds a great deal of useful functionality for very little cost. In addition, the 'fix' is to add a "return true;" to existing code. I wouldn't consider that particularly onerous...unless you have like 1000 row handlers, in which case, you probably *deserve* some pain. ;-) I think it's a great idea. Larry On Jan 30, 2008 2:45 PM, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't think of any other use for the return value, so I like the idea. > The only drawback is that this will break existing row handlers. This could > be an argument in favor of the two parameter approach - because it could be > an overloaded method. Of course, any change to the interface is going to > cause headaches for existing row handlers. Maybe we should provide adapter > classes like AWT? > > <shudder>Did I just suggest using AWT as a model?</shudder> > > Jeff Butler > > > > On Jan 30, 2008 1:17 PM, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hmmm... would it be horrible if the return value of handleRow() was a > > boolean for "continue"? > > > > // don't mind the verbosity or any misplaced > > // capital letters...thank you outlook > > public boolean handleRow (Object valueObject) { > > boolean continue = true; > > if (someCondition) { > > continue = false; > > } > > return continue; > > } > > > > I hate to suggest making use of the return value, because there is only > > one...but it isn't used right now. Is this the best use of the return > > value? The alternative is to use a second parameter for controls... > > > > public void handleRow (ResultSetControl control, Object valueObject) { > > if (someCondition) { > > control.setContinue(false); > > } > > } > > > > Sorry if this has already been discussed, it's more of a dev@ issue, but > > since we're talking about it here... > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Clinton > > > > > > > > >
<<winmail.dat>>
