Hi Kevin,
getUpdateCount should not implicitly execute the query.
-Linda
On 8/6/2013 1:06 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Linda,
> Now I'm confused between your two responses on this topic... Should getUpdateCount implicitly execute the prepared
> statement (similar to getSingleResult and getResultList)? Or, should the user be required to call execute() before
> calling getUpdateCount()? Depending on your answer, I may have follow observations... :-) Thanks.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com> wrote on 08/06/2013 02:48:00 PM:
>
> > From: Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
> > To: jsr338-experts_at_jpa-spec.java.net,
> > Date: 08/06/2013 02:49 PM
> > Subject: [jsr338-experts] Re: StoredProcedure clarification
> >
> > Gordon is right here, so please excuse my jet-lagged response.
> > I had misread getUpdateCount for executeUpdate (which should have
> > been called).
> >
> > -Linda
> >
> >
> > On 8/6/2013 12:31 PM, gordon yorke wrote:
> > > The practical thing to do for users in this case is to execute the
> > stored procedure but the specification does not
> > > define what should happen if getUpdateCount() is called on an
> > unexecuted StoredProcedureQuery.
> > > --Gordon
> > >
> > > On 26/07/2013 7:16 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> > >> EntityManager em = ...;
> > >> StoredProcedureQuery query = em.createStoredProcedureQuery(...);
> > >> query.getUpdateCount();
> > >>
> > >> What should happen above when getUpdateCount() is called? The
> > "result" corollaries (getResultList, getSingleResult)
> > >> specifically say that the query will be executed when they are
> > called. getUpdateCount conspicuously says nothing on
> > >> the subject. Nor does it call out being allowed to throw an
> > exception in this case. So should I assume that
> > >> getUpdateCount() should just return -1 here?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, its a silly case, but the TCK does it. Many times...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >