Same here. Thanks for your offer, Jon. Being short of time a bit these days, let me just get some of the knowledge across I do remember from the days back then.
a) Some RDBMS engines do not have support for a LIMIT clause (or anything similar). b) Some (other) RDBMS do have limited support only for LIMIT clauses (or similar constructs) only. c) Some RDBMS do have full support for LIMIT clauses, though restrict this on single table entities only. In other words, it might as well be that a solution will have to happen at Castor's code level, as the current (limited) solution makes use of DB-specific constructs only. Werner Ralf Joachim wrote: > Hi Jon, > > we appreciate your offer to help resolving this realy critical issue. To > start with things I will try to outline my understanding of what > happens later on today at the issue. > > Having said that I have already started to work at a series of > refactorings of SQL engine to improve SQL generation. In addition a GSoC > student will work at improvement of OQL engine this summer. > > Regards > Ralf > > Jon Wilmoth schrieb: >> Are there any suggested workarounds for >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CASTOR-1252 (Limit clause on model with >> collection...causing inaccurate search results)? Better yet any >> progress on a resolution? Given the frequency of 1:M relationships in >> software and the fact that "child" records are typically in need of >> "paging" I completely understand the bug's critical priority and would >> like to help get this 2+ year old bug knocked off. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Jon >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
