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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to