2015-01-14 16:06 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>: > > So I also propose to shift this to use that Identifier class >> >> I like that idea. >> >> Is it correct to say it represents a logical name basically? If so, how >> about naming it "LogicalName"? "Identifier" seems too generic to me (e.g. >> easily to be mixed up with entity identifiers). Would that class/interface >> define a method String getPhysicalName()? That should nicely encapsulate >> the quote handling. >> > > Well that depends on how we interpret "logical name". Take a table named > "my_table" in the "my_schema" schema as part of the "my_catalog" catalog. > Now, each of those individual "names" would be an > * tableName = new Identifier( "my_table", false ); > * schemaName = new Identifier( "my_schema", false ); > * catalogName = new Identifier( "my_catalog", false ); > > So Identifier really just represents the parts of a "object name" (in SQL > terms). > > Now historically, the logical name of a table is represented by this > qualified form. Remember though that "historically" points specifically to > growing from hbm.xml mapping where this is not really an issue. > > As an aside, in that metamodel branch there is also an aggregated form to > represent the qualified table name by composing all 3 components together, > as well as physically grouping them into Schema objects. But there is no > natural corollary to these concepts in org.hibernate.mapping, and so I will > not pull them over. Although... I will say that it might be better to use > that typed form (QualifiedTableName class aggregating the 3 compoment > names) as the "cross reference key". >
Yes, such an aggregated form indeed is how I had done it on first thought. But then I don't really know the code which would be using it, so I cannot comment on whether that'd be feasible or doable at this point of time. _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
