On 5 August 2015 at 16:27, Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>> as I'd like us to consider not
> applying DateBridge on the new types as it doesn't seem to add much
> practical value.
>
> Ok, that may make sense for types such as LocalDate. But there are types in
> the new API which - unlike LocalDate - do describe an exact instant on the
> time line (e.g. ZonedDateTime, Instant). For those IMO it makes sense for
> sure to support both encodings, NUMERIC and STRING (similar to Date/Calendar
> so far) and thus apply @DateBridge.
+1
> Question is whether/how to index/persist TZ information, for Calendar it
> seems not been persisted in the index so far?
It's encoding the Calendar's time as distance from epoch, which is a
neutral encoding so you don't need the TZ.
For the old style Date/Calendar types we always assumed the value was
a point-in-time, unless explicitly opting in for an alternative
encoding.
For example for the "birthday use case" a reasonable setting would
have been String encoding with resolution=DAY, although passing in a
Date instance having the right value (as in right timezone) would have
been user's responsibility.. we simply take the long it's storing and
index that with the requested resolution.
Sanne
>
>
> 2015-08-05 17:10 GMT+02:00 Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org>:
>>
>> Inline:
>>
>> On 5 August 2015 at 15:42, Davide D'Alto <dav...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>> > If a user select a resolution that does not make much sense we can log a
>> > warning.
>>
>> +1 And update the javadoc to mention that some resolution values don't
>> apply
>>
>> > But I think this might make sense:
>> >
>> > @DateBridge(resolution=MONTH)
>> > LocalDate birthday;
>>
>> Ok but how often do you think that will be used?
>> Sorry playing devil's advocate here, as I'd like us to consider not
>> applying DateBridge on the new types as it doesn't seem to add much
>> practical value.
>>
>> I agree it's worth a shot, but while going ahead keep in mind that
>> maybe simplifying that is the more elegant solution.
>>
>> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Davide D'Alto <dav...@hibernate.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > What would you do though in case of the following:
>> >> >
>> >> > @DateBridge
>> >> > LocalDate myDate;
>> >> >
>> >> > encoding() defaults to NUMERIC, so would you a) raise an error, or b)
>> >> ignore encoding() for LocalDate and friends? Both seem not right to me.
>> >> I
>> >> think there is nothing wrong with using NUMERIC encoding per-se for
>> >> these
>> >> types. We may recommend STRING but if NUMERIC really is what a user
>> >> wants I
>> >> would let them do so.
>>
>> I'm all for letting the users have the last word, but this is one of
>> those cases in which you don't know if they explicitly want that or
>> simply went with the defaults.
>>
>> Not a big problem as of course the important thing of defaults is that
>> "they work" but I'd really prefer the default to try be the most
>> appropriate encoding, which is not numeric in this case.
>>
>> Proposal: use numeric but still - rather than taking the milliseconds
>> from epoch, take the resulting number from YYYYMMDD ? It might even be
>> the most efficient encoding, as you don't have the drawback of
>> clustering which we would have with a numeric encoding working on the
>> individual fields, and doesn't have the bloat of string encoding.
>>
>> >>
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> > What do you suggest we do if a user maps the following?
>> >>
>> >> > @DateBridge(resolution=MILLISECOND)
>> >> > LocalDate birthday;
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nothing really,
>> >> I would just consider a LocalDate the same as a LocalDateTime with time
>> >> 00:00:000 (UTC time zone)
>>
>> Ok that works but why write all those zeros in the index, when you can
>> just write the date. I realize storage is cheap, but still we need to
>> be careful as the index size affects performance ;-)
>>
>> Sanne
>>
>> >>
>> >> It is equivalent to:
>> >> LocalDateTime dateTime = date.atStartOfDay( ZoneOffset.UTC );
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2015-08-05 12:41 GMT+02:00 Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Our current implementation converts Date in the long "distance from
>> >>>> epoch" to allow correct range-queries treating each Date as an
>> >>>> instant
>> >>>> in time - allowing a universal sorting strategy. But a LocalDate is
>> >>>> not an instant-in-time.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A LocalDate is intentionally oblivious of the timezone; as the
>> >>>> javadoc
>> >>>> states, it's useful for birthdays, i.e. symbolic occurrences and
>> >>>> potentially legal matters which don't fit into a universal sorting
>> >>>> model but rather with the local political scene - we would need the
>> >>>> combo {LocalDate, ZoneId} provided to be able to allow sorting across
>> >>>> different LocalDate - or simply assume that they are all referring to
>> >>>> the same Zone.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Right, I had the latter in mind and would use UTC for that purpose.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think that if the user is using a LocalDate type, he's implicitly
>> >>>> hinting that the timezone is not relevant for the practical use
>> >>>> (possibly even wrong); the most faithful representation would be the
>> >>>> string form in ISO standard format or to encode the day,month,year as
>> >>>> independent fields? This last detail depends on how it would be more
>> >>>> efficient to store & query; probably the String format YYYYMMDD would
>> >>>> be the most efficient internal representation to allow also correct
>> >>>> sorting.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I wouldn't use NumericField(s) in this case, as they are more
>> >>>> effective only with larger ranges, while MM and DD are very short;
>> >>>> not
>> >>>> sure if it's worth splitting the year as a NumericField either, as
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> values will likely be strongly clustered in the same range of "recent
>> >>>> years" - although that might depend on the application but it doesn't
>> >>>> seem worth the complexity, so I'd index & store as a String YYYYMMDD.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Agreed that this makes most sense, given the "symbolic" nature of
>> >>> LocalDate.
>> >>>
>> >>> What would you do though in case of the following:
>> >>>
>> >>> @DateBridge
>> >>> LocalDate myDate;
>> >>>
>> >>> encoding() defaults to NUMERIC, so would you a) raise an error, or b)
>> >>> ignore encoding() for LocalDate and friends? Both seem not right to
>> >>> me. I
>> >>> think there is nothing wrong with using NUMERIC encoding per-se for
>> >>> these
>> >>> types. We may recommend STRING but if NUMERIC really is what a user
>> >>> wants I
>> >>> would let them do so.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -- Sanne
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 5 August 2015 at 11:10, Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> > Hi,
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > What's the motivation for using a different representation in that
>> >>>> case?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > For the sake of consistency, I'd use milli seconds since 1970-01-01
>> >>>> across
>> >>>> > the board. Otherwise it'll be more difficult to compare fields
>> >>>> > created
>> >>>> from
>> >>>> > properties of different date types.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > --Gunnar
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 2015-08-04 19:49 GMT+02:00 Davide D'Alto <dav...@hibernate.org>:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> Hi,
>> >>>> >> I started to work on the creation of the bridges for the classes
>> >>>> >> in
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> >> java.time package.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> I was wondering if we want to convert the values to long using the
>> >>>> existing
>> >>>> >> approach we have now for java.util.Date.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> In Hibernate Search a java.util.Date is converted into a long that
>> >>>> >> represents the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970,
>> >>>> >> 00:00:00
>> >>>> GMT
>> >>>> >> using getTime().
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> The same value can be obtain from a java.time.LocaDate via:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> long epochMilli = date.atStartOfDay( ZoneOffset.UTC
>> >>>> >> ).toInstant().toEpochMilli();
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> LocalDate has a method that returns the same value expressed in
>> >>>> number of
>> >>>> >> days:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> long epochDay = date.toEpochDay();
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> I would use the second approach
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Davide
>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> >> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
