That's fair enough. After Ken's comments though I'm not even sure if it is necessary. It is basically just syntactic sugar ontop of what already exists and I'm not sure that it would accomplish what I want it to anyway.
I'm going out of town for a couple of days. When I get back I'll either make the Last patch or just do this query in a different, more logical way. The problem I'm beginning to think is the way that this DB is constructed creates a concept of a 'task status' based upon a relationship when maybe it should just have the 'task status' on the task and the history should just be for auditing. I can change the DB, so that's something I'm going to consider. On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Fabio Maulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/11/1 Nathan Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Ok, I guess that's the Fabio Maulo way of saying "no it doesn't exist >> but we'd love a patch." :) > > > The fact is that HQL is OO and, for functions, there is an very easy, to > implements, extension point. > > -- > Fabio Maulo > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
