Nothing is moving to GitHub. Some projects are moving from Svn to Git within Apache and then being _mirrored_ to GitHub.
Gary On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Robert Huffman <robert.huff...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
