https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/591
On Thu 05 Sep 2013 10:06:14 PM CDT, Shaozhuang Liu wrote:
> I can give it a try
> -
> Best Regards,
>
> Strong Liu
> http://about.me/stliu/bio
>
> On 2013Sep 6, at 8:15 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> I have something mo
I can give it a try
-
Best Regards,
Strong Liu
http://about.me/stliu/bio
On 2013Sep 6, at 8:15 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> I have something mostly working and not causing regressions. Its quite
> fugly, but I blame that on binders and hcann :)
>
> I'd really like to
I have something mostly working and not causing regressions. Its quite
fugly, but I blame that on binders and hcann :)
I'd really like to do a pull request for this one and have y'all take a
look. But at the same time I'd also really like to do the 4.3 Beta4
release tomorrow. Anyone familiar
On 2013Sep 5, at 12:43 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Stepping through the code showed me that PropertyHolder#addProperty will
> not be useful here. Its called after the corresponding
> SimpleValueBinder#setType call. Really not understanding how these are
> intended to work.
>
> I have some o
On Thu 05 Sep 2013 11:52:22 AM CDT, Shaozhuang Liu wrote:
>> Also, I am not sure that iterating properties yet again is a great idea.
>>
>> One alternative I had considered was to hook this in with
>> PropertyBinder, where it calls SimpleValueBinder. That needs to happen
>> anyway; the plan was to
Discussed finishing up AttributeConverter resolution, LoadPlan progress
and some JPA TCK points.
[10:46] Minutes:
http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freenode.org/hibernate-dev/2013/hibernate-dev.2013-09-05-15.03.html
[10:46] Minutes (text):
http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freen
I really need someone who actually understands the AnnotationBinder and
commons-annotations stuff to look at this and help me find the plan for
applying attribute converters.
From what I can tell, PropertyHolder is the proper place to perform the
resolution of which converter to use because th
Hi Steve,
Since my last response I have gone back to the drawing board to
re-evaluate and test the proposed change. In brief the change does
inline the sql in the current transaction and uses pessimistic locking.
This is a change to the initial ideas suggested. Reasons for that are
later in t
On 5 September 2013 08:27, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> I'm not yet understanding #1. When compiling against 4.2, wouldn't the new
> methods be missing or, if you added them, refer to types not being present
> with 4.2? How would this option exactly look?
Exactly, it would look lik as merging
https://
I'm not yet understanding #1. When compiling against 4.2, wouldn't the new
methods be missing or, if you added them, refer to types not being present
with 4.2? How would this option exactly look?
For the adapters to work in this particular case, I think you'd have to
move FTSI and FTEMI to the ada
10 matches
Mail list logo
