I don't think that it's been cut yet. Mike: where do we stand on the 0.9.7 process?
-Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dain Sundstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:23 AM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] ArgumentException : More parameters were > passed to execute() than were declared > > Is this something we can put in 0.9.7 or has that been cut already? > > -dain > > On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > > > +1 to remove the restriction. As long as no parameters are > missing, > > the query should be considered sufficient. > > > > Craig > > > > On Apr 1, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > > >> > >> Seem fair enough to get rid of the description. I've opened > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-196 describing the > >> issue. > >> > >> +1 from me to remove the restriction that there be exactly > as many > >> positional parameters declared as were assigned. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mar 31, 2007, at 7:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, I think there is a bigger problem... Say I have a > >>> query like this: > >>> > >>> SELECT x FROM foo AS x WHERE foo.name = ?2 > >>> > >>> The org.apache.openjpa.kernel.QueryImpl.assertParameters(...) > >>> code assumes that if I have 1 parameter it is numbered > ?1, but in > >>> EJB 2.1 this was not a requirement and there are certification > >>> tests that verify you are allowed to have "unused" parameters > >>> (e.g, in my example about ?1 and ?N where N>2 are all not > used). > >>> I couldn't find any text in the specification that says that all > >>> all positional parameters must be used in the query, but I did > >>> find text that say the EJB-QL 3.0 language is an > extension of the > >>> EJB-QL 2.1 language: > >>> > >>> "The Java Persistence query language is an extension of the > >>> Enterprise Java Beans query language, EJB QL, definedin[5]." > >>> > >>> So I think we must remove the "extra-params" check, but I would > >>> be happy with a "don't check for extra-params flag". > >>> > >>> -dain > >>> > >>> On Mar 31, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm working on a CMP 2 implementation that delegates to OpenJPA > >>>> for persistence. I'm running into a problem where I get the > >>>> following exception: > >>>> > >>>> org.apache.openjpa.persistence.ArgumentException : More > >>>> parameters were passed to execute() than were declared: 4 > >>>> parameters were specified for query execution, but only 2 > >>>> parameters were declared in the query. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In CMP you declare finder and select methods that have > >>>> parameters which are passed into the query engine. You > can have > >>>> as many parameters as you like but are not required to use them > >>>> all, but it appears that OpenJPA is enforcing a restriction > >>>> where if the EJB-QL text only lists say 2 parameters and > I set 4 > >>>> I get the above exception. In order of perference: > >>>> > >>>> Is this spec required? If not, can we remove the check? > >>>> > >>>> Is there a way to disable the check? If so, how? > >>>> > >>>> Is there a way to determine the number of paramters a query > >>>> takes? If so, I can change my code. > >>>> > >>>> Is there a way to get the ejbql text from a Query > object? If so, > >>>> I'll write a quick parser to determine number of queries myself. > >>>> > >>>> BTW, I'm currently using 0.9.6. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> -dain > >>> > >> > > > > Craig Russell > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System > http://java.sun.com/products/jdo > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
