Too late to change anything in 3.0...

As for EJBQL, the term may not be familiar to many users. I am
actually a bit confused myself. All the JPA literature talks of JPQL,
and only the spec talks of EJBQL. We picked the worst term of the 2
IMO :)


On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
On 15/12/09 2:42 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Yes, we probably should, as well as finishing EJB3.0 missing pieces
support for constructors and OUTER joins (IIRC these are the 2 things
not working in Cayenne 3.0 EJBQL)...

Also probably should rename it to CQL (Cayenne Query Language) to
wrong associations and allow us to add our own extensions (e.g. add
support for DB expressions).
If we are going to rename it, we should do it now, before the
release and before people start relying on the naming we've just
introduced with 3.0.

But I think it is OK to leave it as EJBQL since it will help
convince people moving from some other tool where they have created
lots of queries they don't want to have to rewrite. A bit like HTML,
it is mostly the same, most of the time. Except when it isn't
because we do extra bits.



Aristedes Maniatis
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 4 of 4 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupdev @
postedDec 14, '09 at 2:03p
activeDec 15, '09 at 12:24a



site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase