Thanks for the tip.  That is better.

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Gustavo Ringel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A little suggestion (readbility) Order.Desc("CreatedAt") instead of new
> Order("CreatedAt", false)
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Nathan Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This turned out to be what I wanted.
>>
>>
>>                        var taskChangesForTask =
>> DetachedCriteria.For<TaskStatusChange>()
>>                                .Add(Restrictions.EqProperty("Task",
>> "task.Id"))
>>                                .AddOrder(new Order("CreatedAt", false))
>>
>>  .SetProjection(Projections.Property("Status"))
>>                                .SetMaxResults(1);
>>
>>                        var tasksWithStatus =
>>                                DetachedCriteria.For(typeof (Task), "task")
>>                                        .Add(Subqueries.Eq(DesiredStatus,
>> taskChangesForTask));
>>
>>                        var tasks =
>> Repository<Task>.FindAll(tasksWithStatus);
>>
>> Was simple when I just thought about what SQL I wanted generated.
>>
>> Thanks for the help guys.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Nathan Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to