The only thing that i would note would be that the dynamic sql should
also contain an or a .
B
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'd like to get some feedback on the things you like and dislike about the
> current XML, and also show you so
BTW: It's probably best to copy and paste that XML into an editor, it
doesn't read very well in an email window
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'd like to get some feedback on the things you like and dislike about the
> current XML, a
Some comments:
1. Looks good!
2. Enclosing elements seems OK to me
3. +1 on killing parameter maps. I strongly dislike declared parameter maps
and think that they are constantly misused/misunderstood. I'm not clear
what the benefit of the element is - why not force inline parameters
100% of the
3. : The thought here is to allow for specifying the
options (e.g. javaType="") outside of the SQL statement and to avoid
duplication if the same property is used more than once. But maybe it's too
much for such a rare case? But still, some people may prefer to keep the
param details out of the
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. groupBy is gone completely. The element combined with the
> ID element now work together to achieve this. I agree the old
> implementation was annoying. What do you mean by multiple independent
> lists? Does that n
I just wrote a little unit test for that. It totally works. Here's the
ResultMap to make sure we're talking about the same thing
*
*
Clinton
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Larry Meador
Couple of notes...
* The top level call was for a list of categories (not just one).
* I adapted this test from an existing test where categories had many
products, which in turn had many items.
So that would seem to be almost all of the possible cases... combinations of
those should work, b
