Some time ago I opened an issue for this and attached a patch. I see that some of the other Commons projects are moving to GitHub. Any chance that will happen for dbutils?
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello Robert, > > Robert Huffman <robert.huff...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 19. Mai 2016 um > 17:00 Uhr: > > > Thanks for the comments. Yes, it is in progress. > > > > I generally keep imports collapsed and never look at them. I hadn't even > > realized that was the style here. Thanks for pointing it out. > > > > I already changed ITERABLE to COLLECTION. (Originally I thought I would > be > > using Iterable) and removed the parameterType from the signature. > > > > I agree with you: I'm not so sure using JUnit parameterized tests is a > > great idea here. It is unfortunate JUnit doesn't give you more control. > > Other frameworks (like Spock or TestNG) let you parameterize specific > test > > methods intead of the entire class. I am thinking that once I fix execute > > and update tests to also use the parameter type, most tests in the > > QueryRunnerTest will use it, so perhaps it won't be too bad. > > > > If you don't like it, what alternative would you suggest? I'm not crazy > > about the idea of just copying the test methods. I suppose I could just > add > > calls with collections to the existing test methods, but I'm not crazy > > about that, either. > > > > It's okay for me if in the end all (or most of) the test methods actually > use the test parameters. If not, I suggest splitting the test up into to > test classes. > > Regards, > Benedikt > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> <moving this to the dev ML> > >> > >> Robert Huffman <robert.huff...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 19. Mai 2016 > >> um 15:32 Uhr: > >> > >>> Actually, Iterable doesn't work: in fillStatement you need to know the > >>> size > >>> and that's not easily obtainable from an Iterable. So I'm using > >>> Collection > >>> instead. > >>> > >>> I cloned the project and have QueryRunner.query working already. > >>> Basically > >>> I changed the private query method to take a Collection instead of > >>> varargs > >>> for the parameters. A public method is added that takes a Collection, > and > >>> the public methods that take arrays simply use Arrays.asList on the > >>> arrays. You can check out the approach here: > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://github.com/rhuffman/commons-dbutils/tree/feature/allow-collections-of-parameters-in-QueryRunner > >>> > >>> I will take the same approach on update, insert and batch, create a > JIRA > >>> and attach a patch. > >>> > >> > >> I've added a few comments. Looks good to me overall. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hello Robert, > >>> > > >>> > Robert Huffman <robert.huff...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 18. Mai > >>> 2016 um > >>> > 19:00 Uhr: > >>> > > >>> > > If a prepared statement is built dynamically, with a variable > number > >>> of > >>> > > parameters, and parameters are collected in a Collection of some > sort > >>> > > instead of an array, usage QueryRunner requires that the collection > >>> be > >>> > > converted to an array first. This means the parameters are iterated > >>> > twice: > >>> > > once to convert to an array and once again in > >>> QueryRunner.fillStatement. > >>> > > > >>> > > Would it violate a design decision if methods were added to > >>> QueryRunner > >>> > > that took the parameters as an Iterable instead of as varags? It > >>> should > >>> > be > >>> > > straightforward to add such methods and use an Iterable wrapper > >>> around an > >>> > > array to have the varargs methods invoke the new methods that take > >>> > > Iterables. > >>> > > > >>> > > I would be happy to submit a patch if this does not violate some > >>> sort of > >>> > > design decision I am not aware of and if the implementation > approach > >>> > sounds > >>> > > reasonable. > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > Sounds like a reasonable addition, although I'm not sure I understand > >>> your > >>> > proposal with the "Iterable wrapper around an array". Feel free to > >>> create a > >>> > JIRA and provide a patch/github PR for adding this functionality. > >>> Further > >>> > design discussions about this addition should go to the dev mailing > >>> list. > >>> > > >>> > Benedikt > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >
