Hi Paolo, great that you agree.
In my personal experience I have never really felt the need to work with in records sets in memory for updating data. Usually updating occurs on very specific records ususally distributed over many tables and all wrapped within a transaction. Whenever I needed to update multiple records of table, it was best done by a corresponding SQL Update statement like e.g. UPDATE employee SET salary=salary*1.1 WHERE departmentId=123. In this case there is no need to read the records beforehand and hold them in memory. This can easily be done using a DBCommand object. What exacly someone needs is of course a matter of the underlying problem and application. And if you really need to have a list of DBRecord objects it is possible. All I am advising is to review your implementation and consider alternative approaches. But if you feel that things can be improved, then you are welcome to suggest such an improvement and we will consider it for our next release. For that most important classes in Empire-db are client allocated so that they can easily be extended for your own needs. Rainer > Re: reading and updating records > > I wasn't trying to push an ORM view on your approach, with which I quite > agree :-) > Also, in this contexts, I'm not interested in traditional JavaBeans. > > My only concern is that empire-db's API for querying seems a bit > disconnected from the API for writing, and that operations that are > simple for a single record become significantly (and in my opinion > unnecessarily) difficult for record sets. > > > I'm really on your side with your analysis of ORM defects, so I'm saying > this in the most constructive sense. > > Regards > > > Paolo
<<winmail.dat>>
