Øyvind,
I have finished Outer Joins, although specifying them needs better
support, but I don't have time to create patches and make sure the
code is cleaned up -- I have a project due in 4 days.
I will probably create patches against 1.2 this weekend and attach
them to the JIRA issue.
On 8/28/06, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harbo..ylin.com> wrote:
> 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 - 11:46:35 EDT