> Can we assume that, after 1) and 2) execute, all information (in the form of > hbm/annotations source) is available to resolve all existing associations? > > If anything is left unresolved, should it be an exception? I think it is reasonable to make that a rule.
> > Can we assume that after 3) is executed that all new and pre-existing (from > 1) and 2)) associations in the metadata are (still) resolved? If so, should > there be a check to ensure this is true? Again, I'd say this is reasonable. However, I'd caution against running such checks after (1) and (2) and then after (3) again. I'd run the checks just once, after (3). > Are Envers bindings completely unrelated (in terms of > subclasses/superclasses) and unassociated (in terms of > one-to-one/many-to-one/one-to-many/many-to-many associations) with > entity bindings produced by 1), 2), and 3)? If unrelated and > unassociated with mappings provided by 1) and 2), then it makes sense > that a separate Binder be used for 4). The best way to think of Envers bindings is as complete shadows of the main application bindings. For example, for a forum application that defined User and Message entities, Envers would create complete shadows of that model *including associations*; so it would have User_ver and Message_ver. Supposing the original model defined Message.user as an association, the Envers shadow model would have the "same" except that Message_ver.user would point to User_ver (not User). And for completeness, yes, for inheritance, same thing... Not sure that describes the need for a separate Binder instance to be used though. But, like I said, I forget why I did (had to do?) that. _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
