Too late to change anything in 3.0...
As for EJBQL, the term may not be familiar to many users. I am
actually a bit confused myself. All the JPA literature talks of JPQL,
and only the spec talks of EJBQL. We picked the worst term of the 2
IMO :)
Andrus
On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> 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 - 19:24:31 EST