ibatis-user-java mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From prakashtgt <prakas...@target.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Should iBATIS support SQLJ?
Date Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:07:28 GMT

+5

I vote +5 for this. We are looking forward to use SQLJ in our enterprise
application.


Jeff Butler-2 wrote:
> 
> I took a quick look at the SQL code that was sent recently.  Is this
> the proposed implementation?  As far as I can tell, the proposed
> implementation takes an existing set of SqlMap files and translates
> them to SQLJ files.  So the workflow is this:
> 
> 1. Write iBATIS Sql maps
> 2. Generate SQLJ from those maps
> 3. Use the modified iBATIS JAR to execute *some*, and only *some* of
> that code with SQLJ rather than JDBC.
> 
> The SQLJ executer will fallback to regular iBATIS (JDBC) if there is
> any dynamic element in an SQL map statement (and under some other
> conditions too - I can't remember exactly which right now).  So you
> still have to have JDBC setup, the executor just switches to SQLJ for
> some of the statements.
> 
> This seems like an unusual work flow to me.  What's the benefit?
> 
> Also, the code that was sent included the IBM DB2 driver, certainly
> not open source, and we have no legal right to redistribute.  I don't
> know if that was required or was just included as a convenience.
> 
> So, I'm -1 based on the implementation I've seen.
> 
> Jeff Butler
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> A group of developers have approached us with a contribution of code
>> to patch iBATIS so that it supports SQLJ.
>>
>> If you've never heard of SQLJ, here are two links...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLJ
>> http://www.google.com/trends?q=sqlj
>>
>> The future of SQLJ is not clear to me, nor is its adoption rate over
>> time.  Certainly iBATIS has a broader user base than SQLJ does.
>>
>> So the question is:  Should we support SQLJ as a feature of iBATIS?
>>
>> +5  ==  Absolutely... iBATIS will be better for it.
>> +1  ==  Yes, support SQLJ.
>>  0  ==  Doesn't matter to me.
>> -1  ==  No, keep them separate.
>> -5  ==  No way.  iBATIS is better off without it.
>>
>> This vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Clinton
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Should-iBATIS-support-SQLJ--tp21630802p21679762.html
Sent from the iBATIS - User - Java mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message