ication of
> common practices, I'm not sure one will be easily found. This is a unique
> design practice, and thus will require a unique solution.
>
> Clinton
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mapping-a-Complex-Object-tp26961927p28693487.ht
to build a
> new persistence layer from scratch, as sad as that may be.
>
> Thank you for building such a great tool! Despite my moanings, I think you
> have done an outstanding job with it. If at all possible, I hope I can
> contribute back to iBATIS a
l, but it does the job,
> and it's a lot simpler than going 'against the grain'.
>
I may need to go that route as well. I just wanted to see if it could be
done beautifully first.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mapping-a-Complex-Object-tp2696192
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mapping-a-Complex-Object-tp26961927p27020853.html
Sent from the iBATIS - User - Java mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---
nstream product that could help us accomplish the same goals. I would
>> rather compromise design principles in the domain layer than try to build
>> a
>> new persistence layer from scratch, as sad as that may be.
>>
>> Thank you for building such a great tool! Despite my m
lp us accomplish the same goals. I would
> rather compromise design principles in the domain layer than try to build a
> new persistence layer from scratch, as sad as that may be.
>
> Thank you for building such a great tool! Despite my moanings, I think you
> have done an out
Forward
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mapping-a-Complex-Object-tp26961927p27019604.html
Sent from the iBATIS - User - Java mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-java-unsubsc
t transparently
>>> accommodated the domain model? What if I wanted to use a separate Factory
>>> class to create my User objects?
>>
>> Look at page 14 in the documentation. You can supply your own
>> ObjectFactory.
>>
type
being passed in and call custom factories for every difficult class. If I
could only get the Name class to be included in the "constructor," this
would be a very appealing approach.
Once again, thank you for your thoughtful replies. They have been a
tremendous help in getting to this poi
Comments inline. Overall, you seem to have made this much more
complicated than it needs to be. Looking at your database schema from
your original message, all the table columns are simple strings or
number, except for the gender enum. But you've elected to make every
column a distinct objec
d
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mapping-a-Complex-Object-tp26961927p26997280.html
Sent from the iBATIS - User - Java mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-jav
On 12/30/2009 1:39 PM, Dan Forward wrote:
The Association tag looks promising, but I am confused by the column
attribute. It wants an ID for the Name, but Names are not first-class data
objects and have no ID. The Association tag seems to be intended for a
one-to-many or many-to-many join. I cou
ll try implementing it this way, but would still appreciate any insight
someone may have who has done a one-to-one, same-table mapping before.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mapping-a-Complex-Object-tp26961927p26970785.html
Sent from the iBATIS - User - Java mailing
On 12/29/2009 6:22 PM, Dan Forward wrote:
I am new to iBATIS and I am having difficulty mapping our User object, which
consists of several custom objects, some of which span multiple columns in
the database. However, all the data for the user is stored in one table.
These are the properties of
ery much appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mapping-a-Complex-Object-tp26961927p26961927.html
Sent from the iBATIS - User - Java mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
15 matches
Mail list logo
