Hello,
Vlad Mihalcea [1] was so kind to point me to this mailing list with my
question about implicit joins. The user guide [2] states that:
"Implicit joins are always treated as inner joins."
To me, this seems wrong, semantically, if implicit joins follow optional
(nullable) foreign key rela
Hi Lukas,
I think it is based on JPA 2.1 spec, 4.4.4 Path Expressions , "Path
expression navigability is composed using “inner join” semantics."
On 22 February 2018 at 08:09, Lukas Eder wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Vlad Mihalcea [1] was so kind to point me to this mailing list with my
> question about
Sure, there may be a chicken and egg situation between Hibernate and JPA,
but I'm trying to understand why this was specified the way it is, as I
find this quite surprising.
2018-02-22 10:59 GMT+01:00 andrea boriero :
> Hi Lukas,
>
> I think it is based on JPA 2.1 spec, 4.4.4 Path Expressions , "
Hello,
TL;DR: can I move hibernate-ogm-infinispan-remote tests to the
integrationtest module, since they are actually integration tests?
During one of our previous IRC meetings, I mentioned that we did some
changes in the Hibernate Search POMs to remove the need for custom settings
when building.
Hi,
Maybe Steve remembers the reason why INNER JOIN was chosen.
One possible reason was to have a single way of treating implicit joins.
In WHERE and ORDER BY clauses, implicit join makes sense to render an INNER
JOIN.
Only when used in the SELECT clause only, LEFT JOIN would work just fine.
S
Not sure about it, those are specific integration tests for infinispan remote.
The integrationtest folder is more to test the hibernate-ogm-modules
and have some
checks that the dialects work with WildFly really.
> after all, since they need a running Infinispan server
to work.
All the tests in H
> The integrationtest folder is more to test the hibernate-ogm-modules
> and have some
> checks that the dialects work with WildFly really.
I could move the current integration tests to integrationtest/wildfly and
create a new integrationtest/infinispan-remote module? Then it would be
clear which
2018-02-22 13:19 GMT+01:00 Vlad Mihalcea :
> Hi,
>
> One possible reason was to have a single way of treating implicit joins.
>
Sure, but if paths generated only outer joins, your statement would still
be true.
> In WHERE and ORDER BY clauses, implicit join makes sense to render an
> INNER JOIN
Yes, this could be made sensitive to where the implicit join occurs.
However, there is another, better way... explicit joins. In our opinion
originally (and nothing has changed my mind about this) it is better to be
consistent in how implicit joins are handled. It is far easier to impart
to user
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your message. Of course, being explicit always has the advantage
of ... being explicit. But my question here is really about the implicit
join feature and how it works.
2018-02-22 15:57 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole :
> it is better to be consistent in how implicit joins are hand
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:11 AM Lukas Eder wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for your message. Of course, being explicit always has the
> advantage of ... being explicit. But my question here is really about the
> implicit join feature and how it works.
>
Sure, but that is also part of the answer.
11 matches
Mail list logo
