On 14 déc. 2009, at 11:15, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > Even though I'm ok with breaking index compatibility, > it looks like option "2" will not break compatibility per-se > (other features might) as they state the same compression algorithm is > being used, just > they don't apply it automatically anymore (and the Store.Compress > isn't defined in 3.0)
So today (2.4) they use a binary format to store the compressed data? > Actually option "1" (dropping support for Compression) would break it, > in case you are > having compressed field. right unless we simulate what they did before exactly. What's the rational for dropping the support on their side? > > The numbers/dates indexing and new rangequeries will force us to drop > backwards compatibility, > unless we implement those later on keeping the old broken strategy. You lost me, what is that? _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
