Hi Sven, Some follow-up on this discussion:
2013/4/14 Sven Jacobs <[email protected]> > Hi Lukas, > > Unfortunately, TableField is used in a couple of places, specifically >> the ON KEY join method. I didn't have time to try to resolve that >> dependency, but I think it would be possible to pull up the getTable() >> method to Field.table() and make it "optional", i.e. allow for it to >> return null, if a field's table is unknown or not available. >> >> > if you could do that, that would be great! If you have a better idea of > how to fix the initial problem, that's fine with me too ;) > TableField was not removed in jOOQ 3.0. I am still not sure whether we should have that type or not. So I'm leaving it there for now. Unfortunately, these parts of the jOOQ API are closely coupled with the code-generator's expected output. Fixing these things will take some time, and I'm currently not sure how this can be done. Have you made any progress on your side? Cheers Lukas > But at the moment I'm using traditional JDBC for an INSERT statement > because I need to fetch the generated ID. All other code is jOOQ already. > Would really like to completely use jOOQ here. > > Thanks > > Sven > > -- > 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.
