Okay, thanks! - hugi
> On 28. ágú. 2015, at 06:44, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: > > No, that's a decision you'd make when building an expression (like you do). > > We actually initially thought of adding join semantics to relationships in > the model, but that felt misplaced, so it ended up where it is now. > > Andrus > > >> On Aug 27, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote: >> >> Hi all. >> >> I find that when I query over relationships I (and my users) almost always >> want an outer join. For example, if I ask for a list of Employee objects >> based on the expression ((name=’McDonald’) or >> (employee.company.name=‘McDonald’)), I don’t want to exclude employees named >> “McDonald" that don’t have an associated company record. The part of the >> query that involves the company is separated from the first part by a >> logical “or” and thus the user will always believe that it should not affect >> results of other parts of the expression. Checking for employees without a >> company feels like a third condition that should be explicitly stated. >> >> I know I can call “outer()” on a property every time I’m constructing paths >> to query on, however, that gets old fast (and easy to forget), so currently >> I’m doing string replace in my paths, replacing “.” with “+.”. That makes me >> feel dirty. >> >> So, I ask: Is there any way for me to ask Cayenne to implicitly perform >> outer joins when filtering on expressions, unless explicitly otherwise >> stated? For example, when modeling relationships? (as is done in EOF) >> >> Cheers, >> - hugi >> >> // Hugi Thordarson >> // http://www.loftfar.is/ <http://www.loftfar.is/> >> // s. 895-6688 >> >> >> >