ibatis-user-java mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "任立新" <renli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Deprecate queryForObject ("statement", paramObject, resultObject)
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2006 07:53:13 GMT
+1

On 11/6/06, Davide Marche <javac@email.it> wrote:
>
>  +1
>
> I believe that ResultObjectFactory is much better (as described), and it
> is something we were looking for time ago.
>
> Davide Marche
>
> Jeff Butler ha scritto:
>
> +1
>
> Jeff Butler
>
>
> On 11/5/06, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > One more deprecation request before 2.3.
> >
> > The version of queryForObject that takes both a parameterObject and a
> > resultObject strikes me as both confusing and unecessary.  Originally I
> > implemented it for two reasons:
> >
> >
> >    - Performance.  To avoid instantiating an instance per row.  This
> >    is not a concern anymore, as class instantiation in modern JVMs is
> >    practically cost free -- at least when compared to the SQL Statement being
> >    executed in the same line of code!
> >     - Instance lifecycle management.  This allowed you to instantiate
> >    your classes as you saw fit, then pass them to the query to be further
> >    populated.  Unfortunately, this approach is inconsistent.  It's inconsistent
> >    in that this only works for single row cases (queryForObject).  When
> >    querying a list, you don't have the option of providing a list of
> >    pre-allocated objects (which would be silly).  The new ResultObjectFactory
> >    feature takes care of the need to more closely manage the lifecycle of
> >    result objects.  So this feature is unecessary.
> >    - Caching behaviour.  When dealing with cached instances, the
> >    cached instance may be returned instead of the resultObject you've passed in
> >    (as per Brandon's JIRA entry).
> >
> > So if you agree with the above, I'll deprecate this method signature for
> > the 2.3 release.
> >
> > User Note:  Deprecation will only generate a warning, it will not break
> > existing code or stop you from using it.  We just strongly recommend against
> > it.
> >
> > Please offer your +1/-1 vote!
> >
> > Thanks much,
> >
> > Clinton
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 04/11/2006 17.30
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message