> On Aug. 6, 2014, 5:05 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote: > > src/main/resources/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/db/LockMapper.xml, > > line 63 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/24432/diff/1/?file=654349#file654349line63> > > > > How about INNER JOIN instead to be totally explicit? > > Bill Farner wrote: > You and Kevin should has this one out. > > Bill Farner wrote: > hash* > > Maxim Khutornenko wrote: > Just don't see why we would use "LEFT OUTER JOIN" in some cases but > "JOIN" in others. Why second guess what "JOIN" defaults to (INNER, NATURAL or > CROSS)?
Personally I prefer JOIN over INNER JOIN since a modifier calls out to me that there's something weird going on here and I need to go draw Venn diagrams. Happy to defer, but let's standardize on one style everywhere. - Kevin ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24432/#review49834 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 6, 2014, 5:03 p.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/24432/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 6, 2014, 5:03 p.m.) > > > Review request for Aurora and Maxim Khutornenko. > > > Bugs: AURORA-640 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-640 > > > Repository: aurora > > > Description > ------- > > Fix incorrect join type used in LockMapper.xml. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > src/main/resources/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/db/AttributeMapper.xml > deb25bddd826ba8d5fc3af6f7b853fba8d59e681 > src/main/resources/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/db/LockMapper.xml > 9e1f8e683697b1af1543be332c6da550e547971e > src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/db/DbLockStoreTest.java > 283fc7ea1c4c5c102c34894a5b3bc4d828c002ec > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24432/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Modified a test case to point out the issue. > > > Thanks, > > Bill Farner > >
