On Thu 2014-03-06 11:30, Hardy Ferentschik wrote: > > On 5 Jan 2014, at 18:40, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > > Historically annotation binding within Hibernate made a huge assumption > > that AccessType and PropertyAccessor were the same thing. They aren't > > necessarily. AccessType is simply meant to dictate where to look for > > annotations relating to "persistent attributes". PropertyAccessor is > > Hibernate's way of accessing property values (getting/setting) at runtime. > > > > Granted, AccessType *by default* should indicate the PropertyAccessor to > > use. I am not arguing that. I am just suggesting that we should keep both > > as distinct values. At the moment we collapse them into a single String > > (we dump AccessType and keep "PropertyAccessor name"). > > > > The trouble is that later on we sometimes need to know the AccessType, at > > which point we are forced to make a guess by interpreting the > > PropertyAccessor in use and hoping that a custom PropertyAccessor was not > > supplied. > > I don’t know where it is exactly where you need the distinction, but if you > do, > I also think they should be kept separated. Also having distinct concepts for > this maybe > makes concepts also a bit clearer.
AccessType in JPA means both but is also much more limited than our PropertyAccessor approach. If your plan is to separate them in the metamodel, then +1 and if propertyAccessor is not set, fall back to JPA's default behavior. _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
