Details are at:
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Hibernate360CR2Release
___
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 14:26 +0200, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> When are these two case happening:
> - no UT nor TM => looks like a config issue. Other reasons?
For the TM, yes that is the reason in all cases I can think of. For UT,
not necessarily; it depends on whether UT is treated per-thread or
On 9 sept. 2010, at 12:45, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Final provoking thought, why is it so important to switch to Lucene 3?
> couldn't we support both, and have people try to understand that if
> they want backwards compatibility they should use Lucene 2.9 and if
> they want Lucene 3 they won't be
Good points.
When are these two case happening:
- no UT nor TM => looks like a config issue. Other reasons?
- UNKNOWN => aren't things about to hit the fan in this case? Or is there some
acceptable use cases?
On 28 sept. 2010, at 18:53, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> In that case what would you like
Hey guys,
Good analysis, see my comments inline.
On 27 sept. 2010, at 12:02, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> forwarding this email to hibernate-dev to get some more feedback.
>
> Here are some of my thoughts. The method level validation is suggested in
> Appendix C of the Bean Validation
On 28 sept. 2010, at 17:53, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
> On 28 sept. 2010, at 16:21, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1) whether to combine read/write into one annotation : +1 from me, *so
>> long as* neither is required. And as we discussed, ideally the column
>> name would be optional too for
