Larry, thanks for the comparison! The possibilty to use dialect
specific sql code with different SQL mappings seems to be most
striking to me :)
Oliver
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:07:16 -0700, Larry Meadors
<larry.meadors@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> oliver.zeigermann@xxxxxxxxx 11/29/04 2:53 PM >>>
> > I see, what is the benefit over using pure SQL, JDBC or something like
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/dbutils/index.html then?
>
> I have not used dbUtils, but I just took a quick look at the examples
> page:
> - http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/dbutils/examples.html
>
> Here are some major differences I see:
>
> - The amount of code you have to write is much smaller with iBATIS. For
> example, the ResultSetHandler class that is shown on the dbUtils page is
> really always done for you in the sql maps.
>
> - The sql in the first example there is also extracted from your java
> code. Which would you rather read:
>
> <mapped-statement name="getUnit" result-class="java.util.HashMap"
> cache-model="five-minute">
> select
> unt as "unit",
> dsc as "description"
> from
> RMUnt
> where
> unt = #unit#
> </mapped-statement>
>
> - or -
>
> String mySQL = "select unt as \"unit\", "
> + "dsc as \"description\" "
> + "from RMUnt "
> + "where unt = ?";
>
> (...add more code here to move the columns into a map entries, deal with
> caching, deal with empty resultsets, SQL exceptions and so on...)
>
> Also, because your sql is external to your java code, you can use
> dialect specific sql very easily (by using a properties file to specify
> the path to the sql maps).
>
> Larry
>
>
|
| 
