Mailing-List: contact user-java-help@ibatis.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jeffgbutler@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.200 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=SOL6vwU0r0RMBAA2JnOZRvPmCroaT8IOkrAu/udBSr7L+UlOb8QFSff2kAkmG8q0MH
         d5wsrlisHktuvqWJWNOTHz2XrqnKwHvCc4vrWhKtvBnCQ1HkEfVfcZJQXDc9PHsttD1y
         P617B2mj1/aGzDNjdaEOaRg0m/EUzx5N31tdc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <583d4dff1002171138w7162230dr737ffcd510384b13@mail.gmail.com>
References: <583d4dff1002171138w7162230dr737ffcd510384b13@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:51:06 -0600
Message-ID: <c593b8751002171151h7514f9f6l96ab685759878d6f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: If all my sql is in xml, do I gain that much (assuming unit
	tests) using Mapper objects as well?
From: Jeff Butler <jeffgbutler@gmail.com>
To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Using a mapper interface means you have a bit less code to write and
generics support comes for free without having to do the
@SuppressWarnings annotation.  Refactoring support is limited because
the mapper interface name and method names must match the XML - so
simply changing something in the mapper interface might break the
code.

The mapper is doing the same thing under the covers as what you
describe - so there's no other magic.  In my current project I'm using
the mapper interface because I like to write less code, and Ibator
generated most of the mapper methods anyway.

Jeff Butler


On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Rick R <rickcr@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 invali=
d
> calls early on (and maybe refactoring is slightly cleaner but that's
> debatable.)=A0 But assuming we have a unit test for every mapper sql comm=
and
> 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 Mappe=
r
> classes.)
>
> I just don't want to be overlooking anything.
>
> --
> Rick R
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-java-unsubscribe@ibatis.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-java-help@ibatis.apache.org