Use in generated code java.util.Date

[Darren S]

I think it would be nice if there was an option in the code generator to define the setter/getters as java.util.Date and not java.sql.Date/Timestamp.  I know their is a difference in the objects and I would expect that when fetching a record, the implementation of the java.util.Date value would be one of the java.sql.X ones.  I think it would just be nice to do setMyField(new Date()).

I started looking at the code generator and seeing if this was an easy change.  It works fine for the pojos, but then fails for the DAOs and Records.  I found I ran into an issue with the DataType object.  So would this even be possible, or would this seem like it would go against the core design/principles of jOOQ?  I assume that supporting this in the pojos might be easy, but I was curious if this would be possible with the records too.

Darren

[Lukas Eder]

Hi Darren,

2013/11/21 Darren S <darren.s...@gmail.com>

I think it would be nice if there was an option in the code generator to define the setter/getters as java.util.Date and not java.sql.Date/Timestamp.  I know their is a difference in the objects and I would expect that when fetching a record, the implementation of the java.util.Date value would be one of the java.sql.X ones.  I think it would just be nice to do setMyField(new Date()).

Have you seen the manual's section about Converters:

http://www.jooq.org/doc/3.2/manual/sql-execution/fetching/data-type-conversion/

... and how to enforce them to the code generator:

http://www.jooq.org/doc/3.2/manual/code-generation/custom-data-types/

With jOOQ 3.2, you can just rewrite all SQL DATE, TIME, TIMESTAMP types to use your own custom Converter<T, java.util.Date>. Before, you could only explicitly pattern-match column names, not data types

 

I started looking at the code generator and seeing if this was an easy change.  It works fine for the pojos, but then fails for the DAOs and Records.  I found I ran into an issue with the DataType object.  So would this even be possible, or would this seem like it would go against the core design/principles of jOOQ?  I assume that supporting this in the pojos might be easy, but I was curious if this would be possible with the records too.

Yes, it would be against jOOQ's design principles to introduce native support for such "custom" data types, even if they're part of the JDK (java.util.Date? java.util.Calendar? JodaTime? etc...). But I think the above features should cover all of your needs.

Cheers

Lukas

 

[Darren Shepherd]

I tried that out and it seemed to do exactly what I wanted.  I noticed from reading the code that there is a <types/> element where I can just match "datetime" and not specific fields names.  This option doesn't seem to be documented.  Is there some reason its not documented?  Should I not use this feature?

Darren

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jooq-user/VExjfjh942g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to jooq-user+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Lukas Eder]

Hmm, <types/> should be documented. It was implemented with:

https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/2352

I'll fix this tomorrow.

2013/11/21 Darren Shepherd <darren.s...@gmail.com>

--
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 jooq-user+...@googlegroups.com.

[Lukas Eder]

Aha, I get it. I had previously only documented it here:

- http://www.jooq.org/doc/3.2/manual/code-generation/data-type-rewrites/

Fixed the below to match the above:

- http://www.jooq.org/doc/3.2/manual/code-generation/custom-data-types/

Cheers

Lukas

2013/11/21 Lukas Eder <lukas...@gmail.com>