On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>wrote:
> It does violate the spec though, that's the problem:
>
Well it *could* be read to violate the spec. That's inherently the problem
with specs that use unclear wording; they can be read and argued multiple
ways.
>
> "... It is not permitted to specify a field as Access(PROPERTY) or a
> property as Access(FIELD)..."
>
> which imo is exactly what this is doing (specifying a property as FIELD):
>
> @Id
> @GeneratedValue
> @Access(AccessType.FIELD)
> public long getId() {
> return id;
> }
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org>wrote:
>
>> I do of course agree that people should use a single strategy and
>> stick to it, so I agree with your reading about what the "general
>> expectation" is.
>>
>> But the original test represents a quite naturally looking example and
>> it's hard to justify why that should be considered illegal; I'd
>> probably be more inclined in making user's life easier than try to
>> lecture them about how a proper mapping should look like.
>>
>> Ignoring any annotation leads to waste of time and debugging
>> frustration, so rather than silently discarding a mis-positioned
>> annotation I'd prefer a fail-fast approach; that said I think just
>> applying them all - as long as there are no obvious conflicting
>> annotations - would be even more user friendly and doesn't seem to
>> violate any specific wording of the spec.
>>
>> Sanne
>>
>>
>> On 26 March 2014 13:57, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>> > Again from the spec (still discussing class-level Access(PROPERTY)) :
>> "The
>> > behavior is undefined if mapping annotations are placed on any instance
>> > variables defined by the class for which Access(FIELD) is not
>> specified".
>> >
>> > Which to me implies that the expectation for switching access for a
>> > particular field within such a class is to annotate the *field* with
>> > Access(FIELD).
>> >
>> > Also the footnote to this sections seems very relevant:
>> >
>> > "[8] ... It is not permitted to specify a field as Access(PROPERTY) or a
>> > property as Access(FIELD)..."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <
>> emman...@hibernate.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My reading at the time and what I did find more intuitive is what the
>> >> test represents.
>> >>
>> >> Entity level @AccessType expresses where the annotations should
>> >> be. Otherwise the position of @Id is used to find the access type to
>> >> consider annotation wise.
>> >>
>> >> If for a few attributes I wish to use the alternative property access,
>> I
>> >> can add @AccessType next to the other annotations but expressing that
>> >> the actual property value access is based on the alternative access.
>> >> That way, all annotations are in the same place.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed 2014-03-26 11:12, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>> >> > As a user I would not expect the @Access annotation to be treated as
>> a
>> >> > special case by the framework in terms of when an annotation is
>> >> > ignored, as for example that I can put this on either properties or
>> >> > fields, and it would not be ignored, while other annotations could be
>> >> > ignored depending on the position.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also I highly doubt that there is a practical use case to "comment" a
>> >> > mapping annotation by moving it to the wrong position (say I move a
>> >> > @GeneratedValue from a field to a property when using FIELD access):
>> >> > that would be extremely confusing to maintain.
>> >> >
>> >> > The spec's wording states "When Access(PROPERTY) is applied to an
>> >> > [...] mapping annotations **may** be placed on .."
>> >> > I'd stress that it doesn' t say "must" but "may", and also doesn't
>> >> > seem to strictly ban the opposite.
>> >> >
>> >> > As a user if I put a mapping annotation anywhere I expect it to be
>> >> > respected, so I would expect the framework to work on the union of
>> the
>> >> > possible positions, and probably even to throw an exception on
>> >> > conflicting options. The @Access property would then only be used to
>> >> > state which access strategy should be used (and a nice effect is tha
>> >> > the name becomes particularly self-explanatory too).
>> >> >
>> >> > Also there are many types of possible contradictions in the mapping
>> >> > options:
>> >> >
>> >> > public class Course {
>> >> > @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy=TABLE)
>> >> > private long id;
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy=SEQUENCE)
>> >> > public long getId() {
>> >> > return id;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > Or you could have a stronger conflict which isn't solvable via
>> >> > AccesType "rules" either:
>> >> >
>> >> > public class Course {
>> >> > @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy=TABLE)
>> >> > @Access(AccessType.FIELD)
>> >> > private long id;
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy=SEQUENCE)
>> >> > @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY)
>> >> > public long getId() {
>> >> > return id;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > This last example is the reason why I think you should always
>> >> > consistently look at both to collect mapping options, and possibly
>> >> > throw runtime exceptions.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sanne
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 26 March 2014 04:13, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>> >> > > >From the test
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> org.hibernate.test.annotations.access.jpa.AccessMappingTest#testExplicitPropertyAccessAnnotationsWithHibernateStyleOverride
>> >> > > we have the following:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > @Entity
>> >> > > @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY)
>> >> > > public class Course3 {
>> >> > > private long id;
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > @Id
>> >> > > @GeneratedValue
>> >> > > @Access(AccessType.FIELD)
>> >> > > public long getId() {
>> >> > > return id;
>> >> > > }
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > > }
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The test asserts that this is a valid mapping. Granted that the
>> spec
>> >> > > is
>> >> > > very unclear here, so I might be missing something. The pertinent
>> >> > > spec
>> >> > > section here states:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > *<quote>When Access(PROPERTY) is applied to an entity class, mapped
>> >> > > superclass, or embeddableclass, mapping annotations may be placed
>> on
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > properties of that class, and the persistenceprovider runtime
>> accesses
>> >> > > persistent state via the properties defined by that class. All
>> >> > > proper-ties
>> >> > > that are not annotated with the Transient annotation are
>> persistent.
>> >> > > WhenAccess(PROPERTY) is applied to such a class, it is possible to
>> >> > > selectively designate indi-vidual attributes within the class for
>> >> > > instance
>> >> > > variable access. To specify a persistent instancevariable for
>> access
>> >> > > by the
>> >> > > persistence provider runtime, that instance variable must be
>> >> > > desig-nated
>> >> > > Access(FIELD).</quote>*
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I can see a few different ways to read that:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 1) @Access can be placed on the attribute to define both where to
>> look
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > mapping annotations and the runtime access strategy for a given
>> >> > > attribute.
>> >> > > Here, we'd do:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > @Entity
>> >> > > @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY)
>> >> > > public class Course3 {
>> >> > > @Id
>> >> > > @GeneratedValue
>> >> > > @Access(AccessType.FIELD)
>> >> > > private long id;
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > public long getId() {
>> >> > > return id;
>> >> > > }
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > > }
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 2) @Access can be placed on the attribute to define the runtime
>> access
>> >> > > strategy for a given attribute, but the class/hierarchy AccessType
>> >> > > controls
>> >> > > where to look for mapping annotations. This would lead to:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > @Entity
>> >> > > @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY)
>> >> > > public class Course3 {
>> >> > > @Access(AccessType.FIELD)
>> >> > > private long id;
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > @Id
>> >> > > @GeneratedValue
>> >> > > public long getId() {
>> >> > > return id;
>> >> > > }
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > > }
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The test seems to illustrate that our legacy code made yet a 3rd
>> >> > > reading of
>> >> > > this passage such that @Access is still considered a "mapping
>> >> > > annotation"
>> >> > > even though that seems to directly contradict "To specify a
>> persistent
>> >> > > instance
>> >> > > variable for access by the persistence provider runtime, that
>> instance
>> >> > > variable must be desig-
>> >> > > nated Access(FIELD)."
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Is there some other passage I am missing that bears on what to do
>> >> > > here?
>> >> > > How do y'all feel about that passage and its implications on this
>> >> > > test
>> >> > > mapping?
>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>> >> > > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
