No specific reason other than we haven't really needed to. Yes, we write our own TableImpl subclasses by hand but there are only 3-4 of them. Our application is mostly doing analytics and we rely on JOOQ as a DSL for building queries (creating reusable chunks of SQL and combining them, manipulating them etc...). So far JOOQ has been perfect for that. We haven't had the requirement to do typical CRUD operations on records/objects.... until now. I looked at the UpdatableRecordImpl class but the internal docs say *"This type is for JOOQ INTERNAL USE only. Do not reference directly"*
On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 10:10:29 AM UTC-4, Knut Wannheden wrote: > > Hi Max, > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:02 PM Max Kremer <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Sorry I should've pointed out that I'm not using the code generator. >> > > I see. Just out of curiosity: Why not? Do you also write TableImpl > subclasses by hand? > > You could of course also have your classes extend UpdatableRecordImpl > rather than CustomRecord in the same way they get generated by the code > generator. For an (arbitrary) example see here: > https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/blob/master/jOOQ-examples/jOOQ-kotlin-example/src/main/java/org/jooq/example/db/h2/tables/records/AuthorRecord.java > . > > Hope this helps, > Knut > > -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jooq-user/83c721f1-7535-4939-bd97-789b7b3916a6%40googlegroups.com.
