openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ArgumentException : More parameters were passed to execute() than were declared
Date Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:47:09 GMT
On 4/2/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@bea.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no problem adding this to the release. I was hoping to get
> > OpenJPA-185 and OpenJPA-179 in as soon as I got commit
> > access, and then start the release process.
>
> You should have commit access now.
>
> > Is there anything else that we need to get in? If these are
> > the only changes
> > we need, I'll go ahead and start the release this afternoon.
>
> I think that the next step is to create an 0.9.8 goal within JIRA and
> move everything except those things we plan for 0.9.7 out to 0.9.8. Once
> we've done that and resolved all the 0.9.7 issues, we should be ready to
> build a release.


How do I create a goal in JIRA? I don't seem to have access to do so, but
I'm using the same ID that I had before I became a committer. It happens to
be the same username as my Apache account, is there something I need to do
to "link" them?


I'm assuming that you've got the link to the release process that Marc
> put together, right?


Yes, I've been going through that and the Apache documentation this morning.


-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: Michael Dick [mailto:michael.d.dick@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:58 AM
> > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] ArgumentException : More parameters were
> > passed to execute() than were declared
> >
> > I have no problem adding this to the release. I was hoping to get
> > OpenJPA-185 and OpenJPA-179 in as soon as I got commit
> > access, and then
> > start the release process.
> >
> > Is there anything else that we need to get in? If these are
> > the only changes
> > we need, I'll go ahead and start the release this afternoon.
> >
> > On 4/2/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@bea.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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:dain@iq80.com]
> > > > 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:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Michael Dick
> >
>
> 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.
>



-- 
-Michael Dick

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message