Re: Question about JPublisher ...
Date: 04 Sep 2011 18:03:35 GMT
Message-ID: <slrnj67fbn.6gl.avl_at_gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
[Quoted] Robert Klemme <shortcutter_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 04:55 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> We've got a pl/sql package, which defines a couple of records:
>>
>> create or replace package foo.bar is
>> type snafu is record (
>> sf_col1 varchar2(42),
>> );
>> type blarg is record (
>> bg_col1 varchar2(42),
>> );
>> We use JPublisher to create Java classes for this package, and
>> *sometimes* it (unrequestedly) merges two of the records into
>> one (Java-)class, which then has (e.g.) both sfCol1 and bgCol1.
>> When this happens, the created plsql_wrapper.sql also shows
>> those merged records - so whatever goes wrong, it seems to go
>> wrong right at the start...
>> How does JPublisher extract the information from the DB, that it
>> needs to create its output? And what could cause it to "randomly"
>> merge records?
>> PS: oracle 10.2.0
> Just guessing here: both records have the exact same structure
Sorry, this guess didn't hit.
[Quoted] [Quoted] One of the structures has 59 elements, the other has 61 elements,
and the Java struct (as well as the one in plsql_wrapper.sql) has 120
> maybe JPublisher is figuring that both are structurally equivalent > and lumps them together.
[Quoted] Even if it *were* so, it wouldn't then make sense to lump them together such, that all the duplicate elements among the actual db records would then show up *doubly* in the created structs, would it?
> Side note: I would at least consider whether it's a good practice to > define two types with identical structure because they *are* equivalent.
[Quoted] Even though merely theoretical, I do not agree to that position. If they have a different use, then they may easily have a different future, too. If you merge them now, you'll likely have to re-separate them, if one of the uses needs a change, lateron. Also, the fields may mean different things (despite being of same types) and probably reflect their specific meaning by different field names. Replacing two such structures with a single one (with generic or misleading names then), is most likely a bad idea.
[Quoted] PS: but thanks, anyway, for answering. Received on Sun Sep 04 2011 - 20:03:35 CEST