> Good question. TableField might've been a mistake when it was first > introduced in jOOQ 1.x. The reason is the simple fact that it is very > hard to enforce throughout the API without making those people angry > that do not use the code generator. This can be seen easily by the > fact that the type is hardly ever used in the jOOQ API: > http://www.jooq.org/javadoc/latest/org/jooq/class-use/TableField.html > > I will check again, why I hadn't considered removing it in jOOQ 3.0...
Changing it to Field would also fix the comparison issue I think because then a Field would be compared to a Field. Since this is a major release you could argue that API changes are allowed. -- 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.
