On 8/25/06, Mike Kienenberger <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/25/06, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> > As far as I can tell the direction taken by Mike with outer join
> > implementation (Mike, correct me if I'm wrong) is to specify
> > explicitly whether an outer join is needed. There won't be any
> > attempts to second-guess the user. I support such direction with the
> > understanding of the problem that I have now.
>
> Yes, right now it's done per Expression either with setJoinType() or
> by using a "+" in the path: "toA+.toB+.c"
>
> If we could be sure that we don't break expected behavior, I'd love to
> have the need for an outer join on an OR or on an inequality
> comparision be automatically detected and translated to an outer join.
> I know that my own understanding isn't great enough to be sure that
> this always produces the correct behavior, though.
>
Any ETA on outer joins?
Clearly there is difficult technical side to outer joins, but the
documentation part isn't trivial either, i.e. seemingly straightforward
expressions are ambiguous.
-- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Aug 28 2006 - 02:34:09 EDT