Hi All, Would it be possible get feedback with regards to points 2, 3 and 4. I can create patch to address those issues.
Cheers Amin On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <ebern...@redhat.com>wrote: > Hi Amin, > I've committed your patch, thanks! > There is still some work and questions remaining but that's a big coverage > improvement. Now on to the doc to get the release out :) > > Here is my raw feedback > > 1. > Interface vs class? > Should we start using interfaces instead of classes, at least for > SearchMapping. That way we could hide the getEntityDescriptor() method to > the users. > I think we need to start using superclasses or super interfaces to enforce > the repeated contracts down to the tree of navigation? > > 2. > Should the methods be on IndexedMapping not EntityMapping? > - fullTextFilterDef > - analyzerDiscriminator > - similarity > Question to Hardy and Sanne, do these concepts make sense on a non @indexed > element? I can't remember how the parser behaves. > > I think these methods should be onn IndexedMapping rather than > EntityMapping > - boost > - providedId > > The problem with this approach is that we would need to differentiate > PropertyMapping and IndexedPropertyMapping. I am not sure this additional > complexity is worth the extra help to the developer. > > 3. > property(String name, ElementType type) should it be replaced with specific > methods like? > .field() => conflict with lucene field > .getter() > > 4. > Is date bridge exclusive to calendar bridge? I think the contract expresses > that today. > > 5. > ContainedInMapping does not contain the necessary upper methods. > > 6. > I've updated the original ProvidedIdTest, Can you push the same changes to > the programmatic version of the test. > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
