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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/25/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/25/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
