Hi Christopher, 2013/9/10 Christopher Deckers <[email protected]>
> Hi Lukas, > > Please, bear with me, I don't know much about Record objects, so I might > be completely off topic once again ;) > > >> Do you have an alternative idea in mind to ensure that deserialised >> records are "attached" to a configuration prior to calling store()? >> > > Is this a similar problem as with queries (as discussed in the other post > with Eric)? > Query vs BoundQuery > Record vs BoundRecord > > ... basically the generic issue of having stateless vs > attached/bound/connected objects? > While the "Attachable" API is the same, I'm not sure if these use cases can be compared, as I don't think anyone minds Record being a mutable object... > If users are interested in a (serialized) Configuration and if Records > were stateless, then maybe they should transfer that configuration > separately and reconnect it on the other end. That could even be more > efficient if they can find ways to not transfer configurations that were > already transferred. They can also create their own transport object that > is a pair containing the Configuration and the Record (let's call it a > BoundRecord). > I'm not sure what you mean by stateless Records :-) Probably their attachment to a Configuration? Anyway, as both you and Venkat imply, jOOQ's default of serialising Configurations along with Records seems a bit wonky, and users who desire automatic "re-attachment" upon deserialisation should take care of that explicitly. Right? -- 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.
