One thing I suggested on IRC (because of the awesomely centralized job you
did here) was to possibly extract this into a strategy. We could have a
legacy one that follows what Emmanuel decided initially, and then another
that does what we all agree here as the correct thing moving forward.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Hardy Ferentschik <ha...@hibernate.org>wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> > I really like the general approach you did in metamodel. In fact, even
> though I heavily refactored most of that package, the way annotated members
> are found is largely unchanged.
> >
> > But specifically, take Sanne's example. Access(PROPERTY) for the class.
> Then for one attribute they want field *access* (runtime). How would you
> see that? Like I said initially, I think there are 2 potentially valid
> ways to support this.
> >
> > First,
> >
> > @Entity
> > @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY)
> > public class Course3 {
> > @Id
> > @GeneratedValue
> > @Access(AccessType.FIELD)
> > private long id;
> > ...
> >
> > public long getId() {
> > return id;
> > }
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > This approach gives credence to the passage I have been quoting here:
> "It is not permitted to specify a field as Access(PROPERTY) or a property
> as Access(FIELD)".
> >
> >
> > Second,
> >
> > @Entity
> > @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY)
> > public class Course3 {
> > private long id;
> > ...
> >
> > @Id
> > @GeneratedValue
> > @Access(AccessType.FIELD)
> > public long getId() {
> > return id;
> > }
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > I prefer the first one.
>
> I prefer #1 as well
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
