I'm interested in the idea and would like to see the patch and test case. One slight clarification to proposal 2, I think I'd prefer to overload the existing method rather than change it, for backward compatibility.
Steven Caswell Sun Certified Java Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a.k.a Mungo Knotwise of Michel Delving "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..." > -----Original Message----- > From: Corby Page [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [DbUtils]Making the BeanHandler... Even Smarter > > > I am finding that my DAOs that use the BeanHandler are ending > up with a lot of code like this: > > String queryName = "select column1 as beanProp1, column2 as > beanProp2, column3 as beanProp3...." > > This gets to be very redundant and clunky for large rows, and > it happens because DbUtils assumes that the column name > selected from your query will be an exact match for the > exposed property of your JavaBean. > > What I would like to do is define a Map once in my DAO: > > Map columnMap = new HashMap(); > columnMap.add( "column1", "beanProp1" ); > columnMap.add( "column2", "beanProp2" ); > ... > > and then I would like a way to tell DbUtils to override the > default name mappings of columns to properties by using the > map I supply. > > I have two proposals for how I can accomplish this: > > 1) I can create an additional constructor for > BasicRowProcessor that takes a nameMap as input. Then I would > change the mapColumnsToProperties() method to check for the > existence of such a map when performing the name mapping. > > 2) Looking at proposal 1, it occurs to me that > mapColumnsToProperties is really more of a ColumnProcessor > thing than a RowProcessor thing. I could refactor so that the > BasicRowProcessor delegates to its ColumnProcessor to provide > the mapColumnsToProperties functionality. Now, the nameMap > would be passed into the BasicColumnProcessor class. Also, I > would have to change the method signature for the > ColumnProcessor interface so that the process method takes a > colunm name rather than an index number for its second argument. > > If folks are agreeable to either of these two proposals, I am > willing to submit patch and testcase. > > Thanks, > Corby > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
