Mailing-List: contact users-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of
 Collins-Solutions@austin.rr.com does not designate 216.139.236.158 as
 permitted sender)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: RCollins <Collins-Solutions@austin.rr.com>
To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Message-ID: <1279892343051-5329587.post@n2.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <1279870286807-5328654.post@n2.nabble.com>
References: <1279199947537-5297321.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <69BEFCE5AAEBCA44B1301AD2360E83C7BEA00953EB@MATSVEC14.mclane.local>
 <A768D9CD-36F0-43CC-8553-AD4BE9598EEB@gmail.com>
 <1279627837861-5316339.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <1279806698997-5325421.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <1279807342856-5325472.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <1279870286807-5328654.post@n2.nabble.com>
Subject: Re: Unnecesery INNER JOIN
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


I disagree with you when you say that if I want to fetch b.a.id it should not
create any joins.  It is the same type of thing as trying to fetch
b.a.description.  If you wanted to fetch just the id, then you do not try to
access the joined table.  You simple access the column on table B.  b.a_id.  
Why would you need to access the id column on table A when it is the same as
the a_id column on table B?

I understand that some of the other frameworks may not join the tables for
this query but I think they are just over compensating for developer
sloppiness.  Personally, I do not see a bug in OpenJPA for this query.  I
think the query needs to be reworked.  Would the developers of OpenJPA
confirm/deny this?  Once again this is my opinion.
-- 
View this message in context: http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/Unnecesery-INNER-JOIN-tp5297321p5329587.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.