On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:50 PM Thorsten Schöning <[email protected]> wrote:
> Guten Tag Lukas Eder, > am Freitag, 7. Februar 2020 um 15:37 schrieben Sie: > > > Does this make sense? > > Absolutely, thanks! :-) You only have my old code, already changed it > to what you suggested right now. BUT: Not with using a custom table, > but my former approach with individual, unrelated fields only. > > Would be great if you could have an additional look and tell me if > my current approach should work or doesn't make any sense. Didn't > execute anything currently. > It's a lot of code. If you could TL;DR-summarize it with 6-7 lines, I'll be happy to look at it. > I had the feeling that my current implementation should work as well, > because jOOQ simply renders given field names and as long those are > available by some CTE, things will simply work. Or do I really NEED > custom tables like in your former suggestion? No you don't need them. CustomTable and TableImpl (from your generated code) are equivalent, except you should not directly extend the latter, because that's internal API. > Because what I have now > is what I want, especially after reading your suggestion, and if I > need custom tables to get that, I will change my definitions to custom > tables. > Sounds great! -- 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/CAB4ELO5%3DhfHOJYfAsHb9kO2O9b_JbFdAHzyo_6QN3xTXLAa6GQ%40mail.gmail.com.
