Another option would be to use the existing openjpa.Compatibility
configuration setting:
openjpa.Compatibility: JPQL=[strict|warn|extended],
XSDValidation=[true|false|warn]
-Patrick
On Jan 23, 2008 2:00 PM, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Instead of 'All' how about?
> > openjpa.extensions.* = [true|false|warn]
>
> I don't like *, just because we've never used that pattern before, and
> it seems difficult to write a corresponding bean accessor for. But
> neither of those are necessarily the best reasons to avoid it.
>
> -Patrick
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2008 9:11 AM, Pinaki Poddar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Liked this one better
> > openjpa.extensions.JPQL = [true|false|warn]
> >
> > On 'ignore' option I was thinking of a choice where the runtime
> > continues working when extended JPQL is used but ignores all the
> > extended clasues. On second thought though that does not look good to
> > me.
> >
> > Instead of 'All' how about?
> > openjpa.extensions.* = [true|false|warn]
> >
> > If some of the extensions become part of JPA spec in future, then still
> > some features are more likely to remain exclusive to OpenJPA so the
> > property will reatin its significance.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Albert Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:35 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> >
> > Subject: Re: JPQL extensions
> >
> > Is JPQL the ONLY spec extension we have in mind? Do we just want 'none'
> > or 'all' option or allow more granular enable when more extensions are
> > added in the future? How about
> >
> > openjpa.extensions.All=[true|false|warn]
> > openjpa.extensions.JPQL=[true|false|warn]
> > openjpa.extensions.Xxxxxx=[true|false|warn] <-- future extensions
> >
> > What about if an extension gets adopted in future JPA spec, then how are
> > the options get interpreted?
> >
> > Albert Lee.
> >
> > On Jan 16, 2008 1:27 AM, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > How would 'ignore' and 'false' differ?
> > >
> > > Also, your naming would presumably restrict the property to just JPQL.
> > > What about a broader toggle to control strict JPA compliance? It seems
> >
> > > like if someone wants strict compliance, they're going to want it
> > > everywhere, not just in JPQL.
> > >
> > > -Patrick
> > >
> > > On Jan 15, 2008 8:05 PM, Pinaki Poddar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > openjpa.jpql.Extensions : true|false|ignore|warn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:03 PM
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: JPQL extensions
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Earlier today, I modified the JPQL parser to allow some extensions
> > > > to JPQL. I expect that there is other non-standard extended behavior
> >
> > > > (JPQL and otherwise) in OpenJPA. It seems like it might be desirable
> >
> > > > to have a property that controls whether or not OpenJPA allows
> > extended behavior.
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking that a property like so could be useful:
> > > >
> > > > openjpa.JPAExtensions: true | false | warn
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > -Patrick
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Patrick Linskey
> > > > 202 669 5907
> > > >
> > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
> > > > contain
> > > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
> > > affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
> > > copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the
> >
> > > use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not
> > > the intended recipient, and have received this message in error,
> > > please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Patrick Linskey
> > > 202 669 5907
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Albert Lee.
> >
> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or
> > entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and
> > have received this message in error, please immediately return this by
> > email and then delete it.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
>
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
