We'll have to agree to disagree I guess (unfortunately for me). I
guess we are too far down the current path.
Anyway, a related concern I would like to raise is the on(...) method
definitions on Join and Fetch. Join and Fetch are unrelated interface
hierarchies. In Hibernate at least I decided to combine those
interface hierarchies so I have an interface JoinImplementor that
extends both Joing and Fetch (a Fetch really is just a specialization
of a Join). Now in JPA 2.1 with the addition of these on(...) methods,
we now hit a bug in javac in every Java 6 JDK (Oracle on all platforms,
OpenJDK, Mac JDK). The original bug report (6294779) is unfortunately
no longer accessible on the Oracle Java bug tracker, although google
searches find tons of references to it.. The bug was fixed in Java 7's
JDK.
Any possible way to get Fetch to extend Join?
On Mon 18 Jun 2012 05:15:18 PM CDT, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
>
>
> On 6/8/2012 11:23 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>> Also, in using ON to both (1) define the join conditions in an ad-hoc
>> join (not supported in JPA) and (2) supply extra
>> join conditions to an association join, we have a situation where
>> keywords are used for 2 different purposes. I'd really
>> like this to be changed. I think it will be completely confusing to
>> users if and when JPA decides to allow ad-hoc joins.
>>
>
> I'm afraid I don't agree. If someone understands the semantics of SQL
> ON conditions, I don't see
> that they wouldn't also be able to understand the difference between
> its effect on our relationship
> joins vs on ad hoc joins, were we to add them.
>
>
>> On Thu 24 May 2012 02:51:21 PM CDT, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>>> Cool, thanks for the pointer.
>>>
>>> So the answer to the question asked there about why a different
>>> keyword is "needed", is that its not "needed". But it makes things
>>> much cleaner to specify in EBNF and much more efficient to parse.
>>> Again the issue is not really evident today because JPQL only allows
>>> association joins. If and when it allows ad-hoc (non-association)
>>> joins thats when this becomes an issue.
>>>
>>> Like I mentioned in my initial email its a difference between
>>> syntactic analysis versus semantic analysis of the query. Syntactic
>>> differences are much easier to describe in an EBNF and much more
>>> efficient to parse.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu 24 May 2012 02:31:14 PM CDT, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>
>>>> Please see the thread that started March 11, 2011. This should be
>>>> available in the archives.
>>>>
>>>> -Linda
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/24/2012 12:09 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>>>>> I was not a member on the list when this was originally discussed, so
>>>>> I apologize for dragging up a potentially old
>>>>> discussion. But I wanted to caution against the use of 'ON' as a
>>>>> keyword in the way it is currently proposed in the
>>>>> specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is ambiguity in cases where the provider supports 'ON' as
>>>>> a more SQL-like ad-hoc joining capability between
>>>>> unassociated entities. In such cases the keyword 'ON' is often the
>>>>> only SYNTACTIC disambiguation between the 2 cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider:
>>>>>
>>>>> select s.name, count(p.id)
>>>>> from javax.persistence.ex.Supplier s
>>>>> inner join javax.persistence.ex.Product p
>>>>> on s.id = p.supplierId
>>>>>
>>>>> So here we have Supplier and Product as unrelated classes (no mapped
>>>>> association). The problem is that structurally
>>>>> (syntactically) the query is completely ambiguous with the proposed
>>>>> form:
>>>>>
>>>>> select s.name, count(p.id)
>>>>> from javax.persistence.ex.Supplier s
>>>>> inner join s.product
>>>>> on p.status = 'inStock'
>>>>>
>>>>> where the join is an association join.
>>>>>
>>>>> When parsing queries its always better to disambiguate based on
>>>>> syntax whenever possible. Here we instead have to fall
>>>>> back to semantic disambiguation, which essentially means that we now
>>>>> have to hold parsing and interpret the meaning of
>>>>> the 2 sides of the join in oder to know what type of join it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention that it is odd in my opinion for developers versed in
>>>>> SQL to see ON used here. The first thought is
>>>>> whether that adds to the SQL ON clause defined by the association
>>>>> mapping or whether that replaces it. So we lose a
>>>>> little intuitiveness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really rather see a different keyword here. In Hibernate we chose
>>>>> WITH as the keyword for this for just these reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>> select s.name, count(p.id)
>>>>> from javax.persistence.ex.Supplier s
>>>>> inner join s.product
>>>>> with p.status = 'inStock'
>>>>>
>>>>> there I think it is very obvious that the condition is added to the
>>>>> SQL ON clause.
>>>>>