[hibernate-dev] Legacy positional params and JPA "positional" params

[Steve Ebersole]

I ended up changing the default to 1 for consistency, but adding a setting
`hibernate.query.sql.jdbc_style_params_base` upgrading users can use
temporarily.

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:01 AM andrea boriero <andrea at hibernate.org> wrote:

> I would prefer consistency, but as you pointed out this for users will be
> another upgrade concer , so may be for a 5.3 it is better to mantain the
> zero-based style.
>
> On 18 November 2017 at 19:18, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>> Another thing that comes up is parameters and native queries.  In native
>> queries, all 3 forms are valid: named, jpa-ordinal and jdbc-style.
>>
>> Again historically all positional (jdbc-style) parameters are zero-based.
>> This open up the problem of different bases depending on whether jpa-style
>> or jdbc-style is used.  E.g.
>>
>> session.createNativeQuery( "... where a.name = ?" ).setParameter( 0,
>> "Steve" );
>> session.createNativeQuery( "... where a.name = ?1" ).setParameter( 1,
>> "Steve" );
>>
>> To me its a bit odd to have these different bases.  I understand that
>> because they are different "parameter strategies"  it is easy enough to
>> explain to a user the difference.  But I wonder if that is something we
>> should make consistent to just always assume an ordinal base of 1, i.e.:
>>
>> session.createNativeQuery( "... where a.name = ?" ).setParameter( 1,
>> "Steve" );
>> session.createNativeQuery( "... where a.name = ?1" ).setParameter( 1,
>> "Steve" );
>>
>> The only down side to this is yet another upgrade concern for users.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:15 PM Sanne Grinovero <sanne at hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 I see no problem either.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 17 November 2017 at 15:57, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > Actually its possible that the TCK always tested it and merging
>> > > `javax.persistence.Query` and `org.hibernate.query.Query` may be the
>> > > culprit.  But either way, the net result is the same...
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:44 AM Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I wont bore everyone with the history here, but long story short is
>> that
>> > >> we need to start treating JPA "positional" parameters as positional
>> in
>> > the
>> > >> `javax.persistence.Parameter#getPosition` sense.  Even though there
>> is
>> > >> nothing positional about JPA's positional parameters, this has moved
>> > from a
>> > >> philosophical discussion to a practical one as the JPA 2.2 TCK is
>> > testing
>> > >> this, whereas older ones did not
>> > >>
>> > >> To do that however, we need to drop our older positional parameter
>> > >> support.  That feature has been deprecated for quite some time now.
>> > Unless
>> > >> there are objections, I will plan on dropping that in 5.3
>> > >>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > > hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>>
>
>