Return-Path: <huymail@swiftdsl.com.au>
Mailing-List: contact ibatis-user-java-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list ibatis-user-java@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 91351 invoked by uid 99); 7 Feb 2005 05:38:01 -0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0
	tests=NO_REAL_NAME
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from webmail.swiftel.com.au (HELO webmail.swiftel.com.au)
 (202.154.92.46)
  by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:38:00 -0800
Received: (qmail 19669 invoked by uid 33); 7 Feb 2005 05:37:56 -0000
Received: from 202.7.95.245
        (SquirrelMail authenticated user huymail)
        by webmail.swiftdsl.com.au with HTTP;
        Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:37:56 +0800 (WST)
Message-ID: <55614.202.7.95.245.1107754676.squirrel@webmail.swiftdsl.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <16178eb10502062109e327a14@mail.gmail.com>
References: <42043D40.1000405@swiftdsl.com.au>
    <420540D9.1020005@swiftdsl.com.au> <420544EC.3000201@friendvu.com>
    <42054804.7030105@swiftdsl.com.au> <42054A26.2070001@friendvu.com>
    <a10a823c050206051449c3e1cb@mail.gmail.com>
    <42063315.9070400@friendvu.com>
    <16178eb105020608482f8ce068@mail.gmail.com>
    <4206968B.40004@swiftdsl.com.au>
    <16178eb1050206210277e5090f@mail.gmail.com>
    <16178eb10502062109e327a14@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:37:56 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: Flexible ResultMaps (Again)
From: huymail@swiftdsl.com.au
To: cbegin@ibatis.com
Cc: ibatis-user-java@incubator.apache.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Checked: Checked

> Okay, I just reviewed my previous answers and perhaps we need to
> answer more clearly your questions exactly:
>
> We favour explicit behaviour over implicit.  We do so in line with
> strongly typed languages that we support such as Java and C#.  We
> detest implicit behaviour because it is difficult to maintain and
> debug.

There was another recent thread about parameter maps which asked for the
same thing which you thought was a good idea. I'm not sure what the
difference is there (in terms of implicit behaviour). (Not sure how to
provide link to this other thread)

> Trust me, your suggestion will not make things easier, it will
> only make tradeoffs that are equal at best and probably less
> desirable.

I'm sorry to sound distrustful, but if you can give me an example of where
it would not be desirable I would accept it. Sorry for soundind like a
nagging free wheeling programmer but I reallly believe sqlmap will benefit
from this from simplifying the resultmaps.

> We are considering other options for ease of maintenance
> such as supporting the <generate> tag (like the C# version) and
> possibly considering inline result maps (which are explicit, but also
> easy to maintain).

I really don't like inline result maps because you'd have alot of
duplicate    inline mappings all over your sqlmap which not only looks
messy but would result in quite a maintenance problem IMO. I hope you
never get rid of resultmaps (even without what I'm asking for).

> We're also looking into a number of tooling
> options to help with the maintenance of SQL maps.

I guess this would be a way around complex sqlmaps but I love getting my
hands dirty and would rather have the maps easy to maintain by hand.

> This is my initial answer.  My suggestion to you is to add a Wish or
> New Feature entry into JIRA so that we don't lose track of this.
> You're the second person to request this.  With some more support, we
> will prioritize it accordingly and you may yet see it in a future
> release.

Thanks for the response, I'll do this.

> Cheers,
> Clinton
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:02:15 -0700, Clinton Begin
> <clinton.begin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe we already answered your question...this is the second
>> thread you've posted on the subject, no?
>>
>> Clinton
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:13:31 +1100, Huy <huymail@swiftdsl.com.au> wrote:
>> > Clinton Begin wrote:
>> > >>>Looosly typed!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > That's not loose typing.  It's NO typing.
>> > >
>> > > The type that's missing isn't what you think it is.  The type that's
>> > > missing is your domain class definition.  You don't have types at
>> all.
>> > >  You just have collections of implicitly related information.
>> > >
>> > > In any case, I appreciate your heavy, thorough testing of our Map
>> > > support (seriously actually).  ;-)
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Clinton
>> > >
>> >
>> > Now that you guys have concluded that map usage is not desirable ( I
>> > totally agree), is there any chance of answering my original question
>> > about the flexible resultmaps ?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Huy
>> >
>>
>