>> @Field(bridge=@FieldBridge(impl=CustomCollFB.class)
>> public Collection<String> getNames() { ... }
>>
>>> I think this new bridge could be applied to the elements in this case,
>>> but be overridden by a custom bridge: so if someone was defining his
>>> own custom bridge it would still be applied instead.
>>> The point of the feature is that when mapping collections of
>>> primitives, people don't need to provide a custom bridge, and @Field
>>> is all what is needed to index the elements; of course this should not
>>> prevent more advanced mappings.
>>
>> So you're saying that assuming you're OK with the default bridges, the
>> elements of the collection will be indexed, but the minute you override the
>> @FieldBridge, we default back to the existing behavior ie be a bridge
>> accepting the collection.
>> Is that correct?
>>
>> ## How about Date resolution?
>
> TBH I didn't think about Date, that's clearly a special case as it
> selects a FieldBridge without actually using the @FieldBridge
> annotation.
>
>> You would let people set a @Resolution and be applied to the elements?
>
> +1, as in:
>
> @Field
> @DateBridge(resolution=Resolution.DAY)
> private Set<Date> views;
>
> I think it's quite clear what the user meant to do, don't you?
I personally find it confusing that we reuse the same @Field at the same place
for a different target. But if people are of the opposite opinion, I can give
up.
>
>> ## How about NumericField?
>>
>> Same as @Resolution?
>
> yes, but simpler to implement as it's taken care of the LuceneOptions
> already (AFAIK, a test might proof me wrong).
The example would read
@Field
@NumericField(precisionStep=8)
private Set<Integer> views;
>
>>
>> ## Custom bridge for elements
>>
>> If a user wants a custom bridge for the elements, he needs to write a custom
>> bridge accepting the collection. Is that correct?
>>
>> I'm trying to get a grasp on the limitations.
>
> I think we don't have limitations, as people will still be able to use
> @FieldBridge to override anything, as was mandatory before adding this
> feature.
>
> ## @ElementCollection on embeddable objects
>
> should this work the same as @IndexedEmbedded, or should it throw an
> error inviting to use that one instead?
ahh, here is an idea
I would rewrite the examples above as
@IndexedEmbedded
@DateBridge(resolution=Resolution.DAY)
private Set<Date> views;
@IndexedEmbedded
@NumericField(precisionStep=8)
private Set<Integer> views;
Of course this clashes in case people want both the proposed behavior and use a
custom field bridge in parallel. But such feature is not supported by the
currently proposed syntax either
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
