cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: preparing for 4.0.M2
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:07:11 GMT
Perhaps something more integrated. I.e. an aggregate expression will be part of a query, with
an option to return the main object together with an aggregate (more generally - with an option
to customize the SELECT clause). E.g. an equivalent of the following EJBQL which already works:

"SELECT a, count(a.paintings) FROM a"


> On Dec 2, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Michael Gentry <> wrote:
> Will the AggregateUtils thing I did be helpful?
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Andrus Adamchik <>
> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <> wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2014 7:53pm, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Andrus Adamchik <>
>> wrote:
>>>>> I think I'll actually create a "stable" branch for 4.0.M2, as new
>> changes will keep coming in and we want the release to happen
>>>> Which I just did:
>>> Cool. There is a lot of great work in there.
>> Yep. My app code looks so much cleaner after I migrated it to the new
>> APIs. And while still raw, the new cdbimport rules.
>>> I think our previous naming regime would have this branch called
>> STABLE-4.0 if we are ready to now make trunk/head available for new work
>> that will not land into 4.0.
>> I didn't give much thought to the branch naming in this instance, as I am
>> planning to merge and delete this branch after the release (leaving the tag
>> around of course). So it is a short-lived thing.
>>> If this really is the end of all new features, then perhaps the next
>> release will be 4.0-beta1?
>> There's more query API work planned. We need to align ProcedureQuery and
>> NamedQuery, and create a fluent thing for non-selecting SQLTemplates.
>> Though these can be done pretty quickly.
>> A bigger project is to bring all EJBQLQuery functionality into
>> ObjectSelect - multi-result selects, aggregate queries, etc. This is more
>> challenging. Whether this stuff should be 4.0 or say 4.1 is debatable. I
>> feel there's lots of benefit in a quick completion of 4.0. There are users
>> who are only allowed to use "GA" tagged dependencies in their work. And by
>> the time we get a "full solution", a few years may pass and it won't be as
>> exciting by then :) So I am +1 on the Beta idea.
>> Andrus

View raw message