Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bill de hÓra wrote:
> [not xposted to jsr-225-comments@j...]
>
>
> Burak Emir wrote:
>
>>
>> My point is that it is more than questionable to use them as the
>> *only* way to pass queries to the XQJ driver (what was called
>> "call-level interface"). This results in the *lack* of a high-level
>> interface which is the real problem. JDBC is a real shame (I hope I
>> am not doing it again).
>
>
> http://joe.truemesh.com/squiggle/
>
Yes, indeed! Thanks for this link, this looks cool.
With XQuery thingies instead of SQL thingies, this would amount to
NodeSeq orders = new NodeSeq("doc('orders.xml') // orders");
ForQuery fq = new ForQuery("$i", orders);
fq.setReturn("<result>{$i / id }{$i / totalPrice}</result>");
...
Node result = myConnection.doQuery( fq );
...
Any idea whether Joe has the intention of doing something like this for
XQuery ?
Imagine how much more readble JDBC code would be if all JDBC driver
would expect instances of SelectQuery instead of strings...
cheers,
Burak
|
