Skip to Main Content
Cloud Platform

This is an IBM Automation portal for Cloud Platform products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Not under consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Jul 8, 2019

OpenJPA and SQL Limits

As per PMR 13287,842,758

Currently running WAS for z/OS One of our development teams complains a misbehaviour of Websphere's AS JPA embedded implementation on setting the lower limit of the number of results in criteria query. They say their application sets the mentioned limit, although, when JPA library builds the query, it doesn't have any lower limit SQL clause defined in it. They provided a documented test case to prove it (JPAissue.docx) that I'm uploading for your analysis.

Idea priority Medium
RFE ID 134411
RFE Product WebSphere Application Server
  • Admin
    Graham Charters
    Nov 12, 2021

    Firstly, we want to apologise for our lack of responsiveness to this request. We went through a period where requests were not being handled how they should have been and we are now addressing this. Our goals are now to respond to new issues within 30 days and decline requests we believe we will not implement within 2 years to avoid customers being left hanging for a delivery that may not arrive.

    We have reviewed your request and it does have merit, however looking at it with respect to the total backlog and the level of voting, we do not believe we will deliver this enhancement in the foreseeable future. Given the unlikelihood that we would deliver this, we are declining the request rather than leaving it in an uncommitted state for an extended period of time. We're sorry that this is not the decision you were looking for. If you would like to discuss this decision further, please contact Graham Charters <>.

  • Guest
    May 27, 2021

    Still 'Under review' after almost two years, looks like a joke: any comment from IBM would be considered more professionally serious than nothing at all. Thanks

  • Guest
    Dec 22, 2020

    Still in "Under consideration" status since 18 months: shouldn't "Under consideration" imply any kind of response in 90 days since the submitting date?
    Is there any chance of a comment from IBM?

  • Guest
    Nov 26, 2019

    Please, any update on this request?

  • Guest
    Jul 8, 2019

    Attachment (Use case)