This probably has been brought up before, but a quick search on nabble
didn't return anything that useful at the moment...
Our plan is to have ALL sql in the mapper xml files (not annotations.) It
'seems' like the only real benefit we'd then get out of also providing a
corresponding mapper object is for IDE support and catching of any invalid
calls early on (and maybe refactoring is slightly cleaner but that's
debatable.) But assuming we have a unit test for every mapper sql command
in our service layer, is there anything else I miss by skipping the whole
creation of mapper objects and simply going after the sql the old way...
session.update("fooBar.updateEmployee", obj) ? (I read pages 53/54 of the
guide and nothing jumped out at me as a huge gain in our case using Mapper
classes.)
I just don't want to be overlooking anything.
--
Rick R
