Thanks for update! Regards, Witold Szczerba
On 11 February 2013 15:17, Lukas Eder <[email protected]> wrote: > This is now implemented for jOOQ 3.0. The change of semantics of the > code generation configuration is this: > > Set outputSchema to the "default schema" (empty string). This will > result in a generated org.jooq.Schema that omits rendering its schema > name in generated SQL > > <schemata> > <schema> > <inputSchema>TEST</inputSchema> > <outputSchema></outputSchema> > </schema> > </schemata> > > Set outputSchema to "off" (null). This will result in a generated > org.jooq.Schema that renders the input schema name in generated SQL > > <schemata> > <schema> > <inputSchema>TEST</inputSchema> > </schema> > </schemata> > > 2013/1/30 Witold Szczerba <[email protected]>: > > Great news, cannot wait for jOOQ 3.0 :) > > > > Thanks, > > Witold Szczerba > > > > > > On 30 January 2013 12:51, Lukas Eder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hello Witold, > >> > >>> In manual, I can see how can the input schema be configured. It can be > >>> also mapped to some other name, called "production", but... who is to > tell > >>> what user name is going to be used on production server? Is it really > that > >>> important to hard code production user name? > >> > >> > >> I can see your point. Along with jOOQ 3.0's introduction for catalog > >> support, some schema-related inconsistencies will be cleaned up as > well. In > >> jOOQ 3.0 "schema-less" databases such as CUBRID, Firebird, SQLite will > >> become better integrated. Your use-case is also somewhat "schema-less" > in a > >> way that the concrete schema doesn't really matter to your application. > >> > >>> > >>> I can see a workaround, it is to configure Factory to ignore schema > name > >>> in generated queries, but it is kind of a workaround. Still, the hard > coded > >>> artificial user name is going to stay somewhere in application > binaries. > >>> > >>> Is it possible not to place schema name (in case of Oracle this is the > >>> user name) in generated code? > >> > >> > >> Currently, you cannot do it. I will register feature request #2133 for > >> this, though: > >> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/2133 > >> > >> The solution will be to specify an <outputSchema></outputSchema> (no > name) > >> > >> This has a high chance of being integrated in jOOQ 3.0 as it is a very > >> useful addition also to others. Due to the expected merge complexity of > this > >> change, I'm not sure if I will be able to merge it to 2.7, easily > >> > >> Cheers > >> Lukas > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "jOOQ User Group" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > >> email to [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "jOOQ User Group" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jOOQ User Group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
