Hi Lukas,
> > I was wondering if the same method could be both contextual and static,
> but
> > I am not sure whether there are so many cases that justify it. Since it
> used
> > to be that way (2.x) you have more practical experience so I can't really
> > argue.
>
I think I was not clear with what I was trying to say: do we really need
both contextual and static methods with different intent whether contextual
and static?
> I would really really regret losing the ability to just append
> ".fetch()", ".execute()", and all the other many methods to a Query /
> ResultQuery in a fluent style.
So, all this complexity comes from the fact that you want fluency in
crafting the query AND running it, from the same chain.
Let's think of an alternative fluent-like way that expresses query
definition (static) and it's contextual usage.
Assume "import static org.jooq.impl.Factory.*", and I will also use your
"with" approach :)
with(connection, dialect).define(
batch(
insertInto(TABLE_A).values(1, 2, 3),
insertInto(TABLE_B).values(4, 5, 6)
)
).execute();
> >> Topic #2: "Executor" as a name
> >> ==============================
>
> It has. Strong and emotional ones :-) So I'm looking forward to your
> elaboration.
>
I still want to clear topic #1 first :)
I know. I hate the java.awt.List as much as you do.
>
Thanks. I take that as a "you have a point, somehow" :)
> Thanks. I take that as an "I give up (on the Factory name discussion)" :-)
>
Well, whatever!
Cheers,
-Christopher
--
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.
