Here's the thing about "backwards compatibility"... That's only true if the behavior is documented and/or tested as such or if the behavior is just "inherently reasonable".
As you even seem agree, the previous behavior is not inherently reasonable; its at best questionable. So then can you point me to some documentation or regression tests that assert evict should accept nulls? On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:01 AM, amit shah <amits...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok. I will move this discussion to the users group. > I understand that it sounds reasonable to have a null check but the > important point is that it has broken backwards compatibility. Any thoughts > on that? > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>wrote: > >> This list is for discussions about the development of Hibernate, not for >> usage discussions. >> >> The behavior you describe sounds the most reasonable to me actually, tbh. >> Also, generic code can (should, I'd argue) still do null checks... >> >> >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 6:51 AM, amit shah <amits...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> We upgraded hibernate from 3.6.0 to 4.3.5 but the application fails if >>> null >>> is passed to Session.evict() >>> The application passes null since the code is generic. >>> >>> Are there any alternatives? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Amit. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
