Yes we should fix the example. Note that the JavaDoc covers this case.
> id and idInString can be null. If null, all the directory providers
> containing entity types should be returned
I'm not against a new method necessarily but I don't see the huge value (ie
easier contract vs breaking existing ones).
On 1 août 2011, at 20:55, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Hi,
> I just noticed that a PurgeAll request will ask the sharding strategy
> to know to which shard it should be applied, using the following
> method:
>
> getDirectoryProvidersForDeletion(Class<?> entity, Serializable id,
> String idInString) {
>
> and passing in null for the second and third arguments.
>
> That's not broken per se as the sharding implementor can easily deal
> with this, but in our IdHashShardingStrategy we don't consider this,
> so we could at least improve the example.
>
> I'm wondering why we don't use
> #getDirectoryProvidersForAllShards()
>
> likely to give more flexibility to implementors; in that case I guess
> that because PurgeAll was introduced after sharding, it was not an
> option to create a method
>
> getDirectoryProvidersForPurgeAll(Class<?> entity)
>
> shall we add this one?
>
> Alternatively I think we should either fix the example or use the
> "all" strategy.
>
> Cheers,
> Sanne
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
