Couple of notes...
* The top level call was for a list of categories (not just one).
* I adapted this test from an existing test where categories had many
products, which in turn had many items.
So that would seem to be almost all of the possible cases... combinations of
those should work, but I'd have to dream up quite a model to even come up
with one. :-)
Category
- Items
- Products
....or....
Category
- Products
- Items
Clinton
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I just wrote a little unit test for that. It totally works. Here's the
> ResultMap to make sure we're talking about the same thing....
>
> <resultMap id="categoryResultMap" class="testdomain.Category"
> groupBy="categoryId">
> <result property="categoryId" column="catid"/>
> <result property="name" column="catname"/>
> <result property="description" column="catdescn"/>
> * <result property="productList" resultMap="productResultMap"/>
> <result property="itemList" resultMap="itemResultMap"/>*
> </resultMap>
>
> <resultMap id="productResultMap" class="testdomain.Product" >
> <result property="productId" column="productid"/>
> <result property="categoryId" column="category"/>
> <result property="name" column="prodname"/>
> <result property="description" column="proddescn"/>
> </resultMap>
>
> <resultMap id="itemResultMap" class="testdomain.Item">
> <result property="itemId" column="itemid"/>
> <result property="productId" column="productid"/>
> <result property="listPrice" column="listprice"/>
> <result property="unitCost" column="unitcost"/>
> <result property="supplierId" column="supplier"/>
> <result property="status" column="status"/>
> <result property="attribute1" column="attr1"/>
> <result property="quantity" column="qty"/>
> </resultMap>
>
>
>
> Clinton
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > 4. groupBy is gone completely. The <collection> element combined with
>> the
>> > ID element now work together to achieve this. I agree the old
>> > implementation was annoying. What do you mean by multiple independent
>> > lists? Does that not work now?
>>
>> I *think* he's referring to something like where you have people that
>> have cats and dogs.
>>
>> Say you have a PERSON table, a DOG table, and a CAT table.
>>
>> If DOG has a person_id and CAT has a person_id, and you join the three
>> tables, you can't get a list of person objects each with the correct
>> list of dog and cat objects.
>>
>> I've not really understood the desire for this one, because you can't
>> really do that effectively with SQL, either - so instead of 1+N
>> selects, you do one select that returns m*n*o records. So for 10
>> people with 10 dogs and 10 cats, you get 1000 records instead of the
>> 200 that 1+N selects get you.
>>
>> Rick has whined about that one for years. ;-)
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
>
