To go back to Fabio's question about Oracle's position. With regard to NH-2792 Oracle has 2 ways of binding parameters. One is binding by position and the second is binding by name. I am not sure which mechanism NHibernate uses, but binding by position is the default. This means that each parameter must be specified in the order it occurs in the query and that parameters not be repeated. Binding by name allows parameters to be bound in any order and parameters that are used in multiple places are only defined once.
John Davidson On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > ** If we can reach consensus, I can make either or both changes. > > -Steve B. > ------------------------------ > *From: * "Stephen Bohlen" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:06:55 +0000 > *To: *<[email protected]> > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] > *Subject: *Re: [nhibernate-development] Re: Jira issue priorities > > I believe that is the current prioritization scheme as well (allowing for > an outlier here and there when a potentially significant issue without tests > is determined by the committers to be significant enough to move up in the > queue of course). > > The existing descriptions in JIRA are almost entirely the defaults that one > gets OOB w JIRA and it would probably be worth changing them to reflect how > they are really used so that people don't ask this very (reasonable) > question when trying to correlate the values they see applied w their > descriptions. > > There's a whole second decision here to make in re: whether we permit > reporters to select priority at creation time or not. What do people think > about making that change too --? > > -Steve B. > ------------------------------ > *From: * Ramon Smits <[email protected]> > *Sender: * [email protected] > *Date: *Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:53:40 +0200 > *To: *<[email protected]> > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] > *Subject: *Re: [nhibernate-development] Re: Jira issue priorities > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sure, >> as you said there are lot of always-subjective variables involved, so much >> that the time to explain and then justify and talk about them is so long >> that, in the same lapse, we can fix around 40 opened issues. >> I don't like to talk about taste and "fried air", instead I prefer >> effective fixes/fix-proposals. >> > > +10 for that :-) but then again, why let the submitter set a priority as > for a submitter the priority will likely always be high. > > Maybe just say the usual workflow it that bugs/patches/whatever are fixed > based on number of votes and having reproducable unittests and not look at > the priority at all as my guess that is already the current workflow. > > Ramon > > > > >
