> jOOQ's type system isn't ready for such
> mapping yet, hence I'm not officially supporting these undocumented
> features.
What about:
1. A mandatory super interface for all enumerations that jOOQ can recognise:
public static interface NumberBasedEnum<V extends Enum<V>> {
public int intValue();
public V getEnum(int intValue);
}
2. Add a method in SQLDataType to expose creating such enum types:
public static <X extends NumberBasedEnum<?>> SQLDataType<X>
createNumberBasedEnumType(Class<X> enumClass) {
return new SQLDataType<>(enumClass, enumClass.toString());
}
3. Generate a field with that type according to some user
configuration (or at least user can create its own generator):
public final org.jooq.TableField<test.generated.tables.records.SomeEnum,
TestEnum> SOMEENUM = createField("SomeEnum",
SQLDataType.createNumberBasedEnumType(TestEnum.class), this);
Where TestEnum is an enum like I explained in my previous e-mail:
public enum TestEnum implements SQLDataType.NumberBasedEnum<TestEnum> {
// Constructors can specify non-clashing IDs
A,
B,
;
@Override
public int intValue() {
// Whatever logic to return intValue
return ordinal();
}
@Override
public TestEnum getEnum(int intValue) {
// Whatever logic to find the enum, could be based on registry
return values()[intValue];
}
}
If the SQLDataType mapped Java type is a NumberBasedEnum, use that
info in jOOQ code to "intValue()" or "getEnum(intValue)".
Hope this helps,
-Christopher
