Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Message-ID: <693223022.1212912108437.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 01:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Milosz Tylenda (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (OPENJPA-478) contradictory text in manual
 section 10.2.6. JPQL GROUP BY, HAVING
In-Reply-To: <4056245.1199809533860.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-478?page=3Dcom.atlassia=
n.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D126=
03354#action_12603354 ]=20

Milosz Tylenda commented on OPENJPA-478:
----------------------------------------

The JPA spec says:

"If there is no GROUP BY clause and the HAVING clause is used, the result i=
s treated as a single group,
and the select list can only consist of aggregate functions. The use of HAV=
ING in the absence of
GROUP BY is not required to be supported by an implementation of this speci=
=EF=AC=81cation. Portable appli-
cations should not rely on HAVING without the use of GROUP BY."

If OpenJPA does not allow HAVING without GROUP BY, the paragraph in questio=
n could be changed to something like:

"OpenJPA requires that if a query declares a HAVING clause, it must also de=
clare a GROUP BY clause."


> contradictory text in manual section 10.2.6. JPQL GROUP BY, HAVING
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OPENJPA-478
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-478
>             Project: OpenJPA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: docs
>         Environment: linux, firefox, etc..
>            Reporter: Andy Schlaikjer
>
> In section 10.2.6. JPQL GROUP BY, HAVING (http://openjpa.apache.org/docs/=
latest/manual/jpa_langref.html#jpa_langref_group) the last paragraph seems =
contradictory:
> """
> If there is no GROUP BY clause and the HAVING  clause is used, the result=
 is treated as a single group, and the select list can only consist of aggr=
egate functions. When a query declares a HAVING clause, it must always also=
 declare a GROUP BY clause.
> """
> The first sentences seems to imply that a query may incorporate a HAVING =
clause without a GROUP BY clause, but the second sentence indicates otherwi=
se.
> Looking at section 10.2.12 JPQL BNF (http://openjpa.apache.org/docs/lates=
t/manual/jpa_langref.html#jpa_langref_bnf), it seems as though the BNF cont=
radicts the last sentence:
> """
> select_statement ::=3D select_clause from_clause [where_clause] [groupby_=
clause] [having_clause] [orderby_clause]
> """
> otherwise the BNF would be something like this:
> select_statement ::=3D select_clause from_clause [where_clause] [groupby_=
clause [having_clause]] [orderby_clause]

--=20
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.