Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Message-ID: <546691275.1218824264258.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Geraldo_Xex=C3=A9o_=28JIRA=29?= <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Created: (OPENJPA-694) @SecondaryTable expected behavior is
 INNER JOIN?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

@SecondaryTable expected behavior is INNER JOIN?
------------------------------------------------

                 Key: OPENJPA-694
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-694
             Project: OpenJPA
          Issue Type: Question
          Components: docs, jpa
         Environment: Any
            Reporter: Geraldo Xex=C3=A9o


I have some code running that makes me believe that the @Secondarytable ann=
otation has the INNER JOIN behavior.=20

I checked both the original JPA specification and many implementations and =
none of them talks about the subject. Hibernate, however, has this in the d=
ocumentation.

Can you confirm it? It has a lot of side effects, for example:

1) Some implementations will not create a row in the secondary table if all=
 the fields are NULL, this will make an object impossible to retrieve or ed=
it. (since the inner join will return null, but it will exist on the primar=
y table).

2) Rows from legacy tables that can=C2=B4t be extended, a good reason to us=
e secondarytable, will not be retrieved if we do not create, probably "out =
of the box", rows in the secondary table, even if we don=C2=B4t have any in=
formation to fill there.

Can you answer on the implemented behavior and comment on my two examples?

Should this be pointed to JPA specification responsibles?

Thanks,
xexeo


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