I don't think we had a discussion. We can have it now. In this particular case my thinking is that relationship itself does not have any particular "join semantics"... It is always a match between two keys. If you just need to find objects related to a given object, using outer join never makes sense. Where it does make sense is in qualifiers. But this makes it a property of a qualifier, not the relationship.
In generally it is often hard to find such single place for many ORM properties. There's always a concern that anything beyond basic DB mapping is really a property of the execution context (e.g. it is different per-application, per-session, per-query, etc. - a good example is entity callbacks/listeners adding behavior to the mapping). So this often becomes a question of whether "one size fits all". Andrus On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Hugi Thordarson wrote: > Thank you Andrus. > Has there ever been discussion of adding the ability to specify join types > when modeling relationships, or would that be at odds with design intentions? > It seems like a useful feature. > > Cheers, > - hugi > > > > On 25.10.2011, at 11:23, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > >> Yes, in Cayenne join type is a property of a path in expression or query, >> not a relationship. This is by design. >> >> Andrus >> >> On Oct 25, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Hugi Thordarson wrote: >> >>> Good morning all. >>> >>> The subject says it all, really: Cayenne seems to default to inner joins >>> for relationships. Is it possible for me to set the join type for >>> relationships in the model, so I don't have to specify the join type for >>> every query? (I always want outer joins) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - hugi >> > >
