But to me that is not a reason EAGER is the default. As the passage says, LAZY is just a hint. So for a provider that does not support LAZY, EAGER would be used instead anyway. No, some of the EG members specifically argued for wanting to-one associations to be EAGER by default. IMO it was a bad decision. But the majority rule.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:40 AM Vlad Mihalcea <mihalcea.v...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, > > Rhe only reason I found is this paragraph: > > "The EAGER default for OneToOne and ManyToOne is for implementation > reasons (more difficult to implement), not because it is a good idea. > Technically in JPA LAZY is just a hint, and a JPA provider is not > required to support it, however in reality all main JPA providers support > it, and they would be pretty useless if they did not." > > https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence/Relationships#Lazy_Fetching > > Vlad > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> > wrote: > >> The Hibernate team argued against this, but we were outvoted. So... >> sorry I cannot "justify it" ;) >> >> Obviously as our previous default shows we believe the associations >> should be lazy by default. >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM Vlad Mihalcea <mihalcea.v...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> Do you remember why the JPA User Group decided to make the ManyToOne and >>> the OneToOne associations EAGER by default? >>> >>> In Hibernate 3.x, these associations used to be LAZY, so there must have >>> been a reason for taking this decision. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Vlad >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
