Hi again,
Sorry for bothering you again, but here what I found for "from" clause in the official oql.g file on www.odmg.org(http://www.odmg.org/files/oqlg.zip). fromClause : "from" iteratorDef ( TOK_COMMA iteratorDef )* ; iteratorDef : ( options { warnWhenFollowAmbig = false; } : labelIdentifier "in" expr | expr ( ( "as" )? labelIdentifier )? ) ; What we understand from above "from" clause definition is that in "from" clause we can put one ore more object definition with label identifier separated with coma. If we understand it incorrectly please correct me. Below you can see "from" clause definition from ojb-oql.g OJB OQL grammar file: fromClause returns [Class clazz = null] : id:Identifier { try { clazz = Class.forName(id.getText(), true, Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader()); } catch (Exception e) { } } ; >From definition follows, that in "from" clause we can put only one object definition. If our assumption is correct, does it mean that "from" clause definition in those two files are different? I don't want to blame anyone. I just want to clarify what part of ODMG OQL is implemented in OJB. This is important for us as we may use it in our product. Thank you for help clarifying these issues. Best regards Nick Gudushauri, Konnect World Consulting ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mahler Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'OJB Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:52 PM Subject: AW: OJB OQL implementation problem > Hi again, > > <snip next bug description> > > > > After analyzing oql-ojb.g grammar file we found that 'from' > > clause doesn't > > support object aliases at all. > > > > It means that we have not possibility to use multi tables in query and > > accordingly operations with joins. > > > > The ojb-oql.g is based on the official oql.g to be found on www.odmg.org > (http://www.odmg.org/files/oqlg.zip). > > This grammar does not match the EBNF found in the ODMG3.0 book! > It also contained several bugs. > We modified this grammar to produce ojb query objects. > Please don't blame OJB for deficits of the official grammar! > > > > > > > Do you know if object aliases support will be implemented in > > OJB ODMG, and > > if yes, can you say approximately when it will be done? > > Currently nobody is working on OQL improvements and there are also no plan > to work on it. > Of course all help is welcome to complete the OQL implementation! > > > Is there any other way to resolve this issue using only ODMG API? > > As OQL is the only ODMG way to perform queries: No! > As mentioned in my other mail: you can safely use PersistenceBroker queries > in OJB ODMG applications. > > cheers, > Thomas > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
