[hibernate-dev] Stored procedure support

[Gunnar Morling]

Steve,

out of interest, for which approach did you decide in the end?

--Gunnar


2012/11/20 Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org>

> Forgot to mention that there is a "named" component to this discussion as
> well in that users can specify named stored procedure queries.  So we will
> need some form of simple access to the parameters for setting.
> On Nov 17, 2012 8:38 AM, "Hardy Ferentschik" <hardy at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 16 Jan 2012, at 4:34 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> >
> > > The alternative would be something like defining a typed
> > > RegisteredParameter contract:
> > >
> > > interface RegisteredParameter<T> {
> > >     public Class<T> getParameterType();
> > >     public ParameterMode getMode();
> > > }
> > >
> > > and then:
> > >
> > > StoredProcedureCall call =
> session.createStoredProcedureCall("my_proc");
> > > RegisteredParameter<Long> p1Param = call.registerParameter(
> > >     "p1",
> > >     Long.class,
> > >     ParameterMode.OUT
> > > );
> > > //maybe some other stuff...
> > > StoredProcedureOutputs outputs = call.getOutputs();
> > > Long p1 = outputs.getOutputParameterValue( p1Param );
> >
> > I also like this second option better. Even though I don't think the
> casts
> > are so bad either. I find
> > our days there is too much hype around type safety and in fact in some
> > situation a cast can be "cleaner" than a
> > whole bunch of generic classes and methods.
> >
> > I also like the approach with three parameters (name, type and mode)
> > better than splitting this out into
> > multiple methods. I actually don't think that the other approach is more
> > readable.
> >
> > Last but not least I am not a big fan of the builder approach either ;-)
> >
> > My 0.02 $
> > Hardy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>