https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-9955
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:05 PM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > 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
