Well, first things first :) Does anyone disagree with making this a requirement to be fully expressed in the mapping? In other words, does anyone disagree fully resolving the "enum type" (ordinal/name) in org.hibernate.type.EnumType#setParameterValues?
This would mean getting rid of the hooks in nullSafeSet/nullSafeGet as they would be pointless. As far as the default type, I don't feel that strongly. Like I said, to me neither is a really compelling way to map enums; names are only slightly better that ordinals imo. I am ok with the consistency aspect. On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:25 AM Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > On 19 Jul 2015, at 16:53, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > What I propose is that we change this. I am kind of torn as to the default > tbh. I think JPA's default of ORDINAL is the wrong choice. I think NAMED > is the better choice. Well technically I think an independent mapping code > it best. But strictly between ORDINAL/NAMED, I think NAMED is better. So > if everyone agrees that we change this to definitively determine the enum > mapping up front, which style do we choose as the default. Obviously the > big argument for choosing ORDINAL is consistency with annotations. > > > Even if like you I prefer NAMED over ORDINAL, I would prefer consistency > with annotations. If you feel strongly on the subject, I think the other > way is fine too since: > > * the recommendation is to be explicit > * hbm is already quite a different beast than annotations/orm.xml > > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
