Another vote on this proposal. I've added the ability to specify
multiple comma-delimited types to element-type, key-type, value-type,
and field-type but specified that this is not portable.
+1
--
Andy
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-245?page=comments#action_12361581 ]
Andy Jefferson commented on JDO-245:
I look at the test Having.testNegative and the query is now
SELECT department, SUM(salary) FROM Employee GROUP BY department HAVING
Hi Craig,
+1
Regards Michael
Another vote on this proposal. I've added the ability to specify
multiple comma-delimited types to element-type, key-type, value-type,
and field-type but specified that this is not portable.
Issue 139:
This would allow more specific field type to be specified
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-245?page=comments#action_12361607 ]
Michael Bouschen commented on JDO-245:
--
The negative test is only testing whether the JDO implementation throws an
exception for the invalid HAVING clause. It does not
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-245?page=all ]
Andy Jefferson resolved JDO-245:
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Andy Jefferson (was: Erik Bengtson)
Thanks for your reply Michael. Let's leave the test as it is ;-)
Now fixed in JPOX CVS
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-244?page=all ]
Michael Bouschen resolved JDO-244:
--
Resolution: Fixed
Good point Andy! Actually the generated SQL is correct.
I know what the problem is: the JDOQL query is not valid. It accesses a field
Hi Michael,
Cool, that sounds fine. I was running out of time when I finished that; I
knew it was redundant. Thanks for finishing it up!
--matthew
-Original Message-
From: Michael Bouschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:40 PM
To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-245?page=comments#action_12361643 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-245:
---
There is only one thing wrong with this query: the HAVING clause is not a
boolean expression.
It's ok to have SUM(salary) in the SELECT
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-245?page=comments#action_12361645 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-245:
---
Actually, I'll correct myself. The SUM(salary) is not correct because salary is
not a field in Employee. Again.
I think this should be
I didn't get any emails.
let me try this another way :
It's better to volunteer before someone (me) volunteers you.
Calling all committers
geir
On Dec 27, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I want to stop :)
Send me an email and I'll add you You must be a
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-245?page=comments#action_12361662 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-245:
---
Yet another comment. The title of this JIRA is the HAVING clause containing
fields that are not part of the result clause. Actually, it's
Hi Geir,
What are the duties of a moderator? Is this just for the jdo-dev alias?
-- Michelle
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I didn't get any emails.
let me try this another way :
It's better to volunteer before someone (me) volunteers you.
Calling all committers
geir
On Dec 27,
SingleStringQuery has a query accessing a field in a subclass
-
Key: JDO-271
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-271
Project: JDO
Type: Bug
Components: tck20
Reporter: Andy Jefferson
Hi Geir,I'll volunteer. What for exactly? How does it work?CraigOn Jan 3, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:I didn't get any emails.let me try this another way : It's better to volunteer before someone (me) volunteers you. Calling all committersgeirOn Dec 27, 2005, at 11:10 AM,
It's very simple (this also is in reply to Michelle's question...)
This would only be for the jdo lists.
When a message is received that isn't from a subscribed address, a
note is sent to the moderators of the list and the moderator can
reject the messsage, or accept it one time, or accept
which address?
geir
On Jan 3, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Geir,
I'll volunteer.
What for exactly? How does it work?
Craig
On Jan 3, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I didn't get any emails.
let me try this another way :
It's better to volunteer before
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-270?page=all ]
Andy Jefferson resolved JDO-270:
Resolution: Fixed
Another one bites the dust. Fixed in JPOX builds dated 04/01/2006 or later
JPOX must thrown JDOUserException for a query accessing a
Hi Geir,
It's very simple (this also is in reply to Michelle's question...)
This would only be for the jdo lists.
When a message is received that isn't from a subscribed address, a
note is sent to the moderators of the list and the moderator can
reject the messsage, or accept it one time,
Hi Matthew,
thanks for checkin it in.
Regards Michael
Hi Michael,
Cool, that sounds fine. I was running out of time when I finished that; I
knew it was redundant. Thanks for finishing it up!
--matthew
-Original Message-
From: Michael Bouschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-245?page=comments#action_12361678 ]
Michael Bouschen commented on JDO-245:
--
A lot of comments, I'll try to give answers.
CLR: There is only one thing wrong with this query: the HAVING clause is not a
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-269?page=comments#action_12361685 ]
Michael Bouschen commented on JDO-269:
--
The patch looks good.
One question: with the patch 0 cannot be used as valid id, because the code
interprets id=0 as undefined id.
Hi Michael,Sounds good. One addition below.On Jan 3, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Michael Bouschen wrote:Hi Craig,here is my proposal:Names in the filter are treated as parameters if they are explicitly declared via declareParameters or if they begin with “:”.Names are treated as variable names if they are
Hi Michael,Thanks for the review.On Jan 3, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Michael Bouschen (JIRA) wrote: [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-269?page=comments#action_12361685 ] Michael Bouschen commented on JDO-269:--The patch looks good.One question: with the
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-269?page=all ]
Craig Russell resolved JDO-269:
---
Fix Version: JDO 2 beta
Resolution: Fixed
Committed revision 365778.
Change setId methods to allow construction of Company Model classes with
default
Hi Bin,Yes. it's in red below. Hope you can see red.CraigOn Jan 3, 2006, at 6:07 PM, Bin Sun wrote:Hi! Excuse me, but I can't see implicit variabledeclaration in this proposal. Am I missing something?--- Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Michael,Sounds good. One addition below.On Jan
25 matches
Mail list logo
