ADBA feedback

[Douglas Surber]

I will revise the JavaDoc to refer to the column label instead of column name.

As all ADBA apps will be new the programmer will have the opportunity to modify the SQL to eliminate duplicate column labels. 

I chose to use column labels instead of indexes because I believe they result in much more maintainable code. Agreed there is a cost to using a Map instead of an array. In our performance testing of Oracle Database JDBC that just doesn’t show up in any kind of real world load. 

I prefer to omit index based access for now. I think it hurts readability and rationally we shouldn’t use it but we are all in the habit of using it. I would like to see if we can break that habit. Maybe it really is necessary in which case we can add it in version 2 or 3 or whatever.

Douglas

> On Apr 27, 2018, at 3:12 AM, Lukas Eder <lukas.eder at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> OK, another example, then:
> 
> SELECT 'x' AS "1", 'y' AS "1" FROM dual
> 
> Most SQL dialects allow for ambiguous column names on top-level SQL statements (but not in nested queries). How to handle this with name based column access? It wouldn't be possible to access both columns by name. Would you want to rely on vendor-specific extensions in those cases?
> 
> I think you won't get around index based access eventually, maybe in version 2, then :) (which should mostly be preferred for performance reasons, as the internal record representation can be a more efficient array rather than a much less efficient hashmap...)
>