Yet, somehow, the old provider did it correctly.
Of course the limitation was that it _only_ supported a string as a
parameter and not a projection.
Interestingly, the new provider does NOT translate
StartsWith(myPrefix + "m")
to
like @prefix || 'm' || '%'
It translates it to
like @prefix || '%'
where @prefix is the result of
myPrefix + "m"
It only does that IF there are other projections.
To wrap up:
- Steve did an AMAZING job with the new Linq provider. It supports like 10
times more construct than the old one
- Any patch that we write for this should support BOTH the cases handled by
the new provider and the old one
- Keeping backward compatibility should be high in the priority list, and
that's one of the reasons to do CI, unless I'm mistaken
- Regarding Informix in particular, I can assure you that NO developer uses
it with NHibernate for pleasure :-)
- I respectfully disagree with the decision to close the ticket just because
you don't find it relevant (and we both know IBM is not going to fix
anything, and if even if they did, it's unlikely that my client will upgrade
to the latest version). I'm tring to provide the patch (I believe in the
giving and receiving nature of OSS, I'm not asking anyone to implement a
feature "because I want it"), but it's going to take a while. as I'm not
very familiar with the code. Steve, if you are reading and want to give me a
hand, it will be appreciated.
Diego
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 19:10, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote:
> That is not the solution because in OO what you have to write is:
> "something".Should().StartsWith("some");
>
> but when you have to translate it for RDBMS you have to fit the mismatch
> translating it to a
> like 'some%'
>
> and ...
> var myPrefix = "so";
> "something".Should().StartsWith(myPrefix + "m");
>
> should be translated to
> like @prefix || 'm' || '%'
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I have closed the issue.
>> >
>> > For me it is an external issue; we can't endorse all workarounds... if
>> an
>> > RDBMS has an issue is not our problem and for some reason we give six
>> ways
>> > to query the persistence (4 are completely OO).
>> >
>> > I would like heard your opinions.
>>
>> I fail to see why the linq provider creates the second query
>> (@p0+'%').
>>
>> The reason is that the StartsWith / EndsWith/Contains calls on
>> 'string' are easy to deal with and you can just formulate a like query
>> with
>> a pattern, no need for parameter concatenation (i.e.: the parameter value
>> IS
>> the pattern).
>>
>> I.o.w. a useless restriction (and IMHO a legitimate bugreport).
>>
>> FB
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Fabio Maulo
>
>
