Is R2DBC coming soon? Also, would there be a way to separate the entity definitions that are only for DDL? I'm sure alot of us use tools like flyway for that and exposed only for working with the existing structure... and I'm never sure what is the minimum I need for no DDL use @tapac ...
1 year ago
I have PoC in a branch but it only replaces jdbc as a "transport layer" and there are no additional functions to process requests in a more "async" way.About removing table definitions, I also have another branch with attempt to impement something like this
1 year ago
I personally don't mind having simple table definitions, but I find that having the number of characters for varchar or relations specified if it really only effects DDL is a waste for me, and even misleading that there might be checks in the code for validating such things, but it seems that in reality there isn't. The .class.exposedTable seems to me a bit messier, but I guess it could be hidden in the DI wiring. But TestData:😮ptInt.exposedColumn is much less succint...By the way, separating DDL might help for R2DBC that doesn't have it. And having coroutines handle blocking calls to regular jdbc with withContext or flowOn wouldn't be better? Then in R2DBC you could use it without withContext or flowOn...
I was recently looking at Ktorm's simple definitions, but I'm not sure how much they're upkeeping it... whereas exposed seems to be an active project, thanks to all your efforts 🙂 !