Hi Sean, First - I hugely appreciate the work you have done and use java.jdbc daily.
However, as a complete newbie I found the included DSL very unhelpful. The java.jdbc API is very wide and navigating it was hard, Particularly as it was in a transition from using bound *db* to not, so effectively there seemed two APIs. I started using the DSL and it didn't meet the expectation I think anybody would have for a DSL in that it wasn't complete or expressive enough. There were moments where the combined experience was very very negative and not representative of the quality of the work you have put in. It also made it unclear what the library was supposed to do (regardless of what the documentation says :)). Treating java.jdbc without the DSL and the DSL as separate projects (I realise they are separate namespaces already) would be a much stronger statement of intent I think. To put it another way, at the moment the risk is to interpret java.jdbc as a DSL on top of JDBC with some low level utilities around managing connections. That clearly isn't true and the project comes off looking very poor. Please hear me - I write this only because I think my experience will be very similar to a lot of other people's experiences when they start adopting the library whilst picking up Clojure at the same time! For me, the combination of honeysql and java.jdbc is close to perfect, but my point again is that I came very close many times to throwing java.jdbc out because of the experience of a very wide API which was effectively two APIs and a DSL which didn't meet a reasonable definition of a full 'DSL' (even if the documentation states it is minimal). Moving the DSL into a separate project makes things much simpler. Just my 2 pennies from a very grateful user who wants to avoid other people missing the point. Col On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:05:34 AM UTC, Sean Corfield wrote: > > In response to the (very reasonable) question from Alex Hudek in a > recent thread, here are some of my responses to questions that have > arisen about the inclusion of the minimal DSLs in the java.jdbc > contrib library: > > > Just wondering if the intention is to make the DSL the primary way to > work > > with the API or if clojure.java.jdbc.sql will be completely optional? > > Completely optional. > > The idea is just to provide some (optional) sugar for common > operations. I have no intention of going particularly deep on the DSL. > > If folks want a full DSL for SQL in Clojure, I'd suggest > https://github.com/jkk/honeysql or http://sqlkorma.com - the former is > a DSL to generate SQL that is compatible with clojure.java.jdbc, the > latter is a DSL that wraps clojure.java.jdbc. > > > Using the latest release of java.jdbc, does anybody know how I can > > construct a where clause when I want to check if the value is one of > many values? > > clojure.java.jdbc.sql is a deliberately minimal DSL - Justin Kramer's > HoneySQL is what I recommend for more expressive SQL construction > (that's the "official" recommendation based on discussions Justin and > I had about java.jdbc and HoneySQL at Clojure/conj 2012). > > > I want to generate sql string using clojure.java.jdbc.sql for eg. > > > > "SELECT B.ID , B.TITLE ,B.AUTHOR , C.CATEGORY , S.STATUS > > FROM BOOK B ,CATEGORY C , STATUS S > > WHERE (B.CATEGORY_ID=C.ID) AND > > (B.STATUS_ID = B.ID) AND > > (B.TITLE LIKE "%TOM%")" > > > > How to do this using clojure.java.jdbc.sql dsl functions? > > The basic DSL cannot do 'like' so you probably want to look at > HoneySQL which is the recommended way to extend clojure.java.jdbc. > > === > > The justification for the DSL at all is that it provides some sugar > for simple, common usage and also provides a template for other more > expansive DSLs that the community might write, by showing what the > primary API expects in terms of SQL strings and parameter vectors. > > At World Singles, we use the basic DSL to support a lot of "CRUD" > operations that are doing simple lookups, basic joins, and so on - and > we rely on HoneySQL for our reporting queries and anything that is > substantially more complex than the basic DSL offers. > > Will the DSL be expanded to support some additional common SQL operations? > > Perhaps, based on user feedback - assuming people want something > between raw strings and the sophistication of HoneySQL (or any other > DSL that the community may produce). > -- > Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ > World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ > > "Perfection is the enemy of the good." > -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
