On 29 Apr 2014, at 15:09, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote:
> I'd actually like to propose to change the depth default to zero, and > since includePath also defaults to an empty list, we'd be logging a > warning as the @IndexedEmbedded annotation would have no effect. > > >> I also find it not intuitive that this means: >> "index all embedded fields up to the given depth, plus the specified paths”. >> I never liked how we baked depth and includePath into the same annotation. A >> dedicated annotation would >> have been more appropriate. > > We've been there and couldn't agree on a better proposal. Feel free to > reopen the case on a new thread, if you have a nice name in mind. But > ultimately remember the goal is to allow queries on a well-known list > of field names, and it would be great to validate for these queries, > so to have a clear definitions of which indexing and analysis options > are applied to each Lucene field, and how to apply a bi-directional > projection.. so I'm still skeptical on leaving too much freedoom, or > have multiple ways to achieve the same thing. Right, splitting the annotation in two does not address the mix of both concepts. _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
