On 15/12/09 2:42 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Yes, we probably should, as well as finishing EJB3.0 missing pieces like
> support for constructors and OUTER joins (IIRC these are the 2 things
> not working in Cayenne 3.0 EJBQL)...
>
> Also probably should rename it to CQL (Cayenne Query Language) to avoid
> wrong associations and allow us to add our own extensions (e.g. add
> support for DB expressions).
If we are going to rename it, we should do it now, before the release and before people start relying on the naming we've just introduced with 3.0.
But I think it is OK to leave it as EJBQL since it will help convince people moving from some other tool where they have created lots of queries they don't want to have to rewrite. A bit like HTML, it is mostly the same, most of the time. Except when it isn't because we do extra bits.
Ari
----------------------------> Aristedes Maniatis GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 18:18:05 EST