As an active maintainer I often need to do the same
Be sure to use gradlew for the import, and re-sync (JetGradle -> Sync).
There is the annoying thing you need to do then though to individually
verify the updated dependencies which I wish they would address. But
other than that it works like
Unfortunately it's not straight-forward in Eclipse either, you need to
disable that circularity error from the compiler options.
I guess it's not a showstopper if you are strongly motivated to find
out, nor annoying for who codes on it every day, but in my case I
force-reset the workspaces quite o
Same here. I have no problems importing ORM into IntelliJ. But I still use the
'gradle idea' task. Is this what's failing for you as well?
--hardy
On 24 Sep 2013, at 19:29, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Why/how? I do this routinely.
>
> On 09/24/2013 12:26 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>> I am sti
Why/how? I do this routinely.
On 09/24/2013 12:26 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> I am still stuck on that one. I cannot import Hibernate ORM in IntelliJ IDEA
> :(
>
> On 17 mai 2013, at 03:28, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
>> yes the projects themselves can use JDK 7.
>>
>> On Fri 2013-05-17 11:59, G
I am still stuck on that one. I cannot import Hibernate ORM in IntelliJ IDEA :(
On 17 mai 2013, at 03:28, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> yes the projects themselves can use JDK 7.
>
> On Fri 2013-05-17 11:59, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>> Have you registered a JDK 7 under "Platform Settings" -> "SDKs"?
>>
Neither one is used in Search.
thanks,
Sanne
On 23 September 2013 23:07, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Anyone have compelling reasons to continue to call
> org.hibernate.engine.internal.Nullability#checkNullability when deleting
> an entity?
>
> To a lesser degree, how about reasons for calling
> org.
On 24 September 2013 14:56, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 3:16 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>> On 24 September 2013 13:46, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>>> Cool, we seem to agree on almost everything now :-)
>>
>> +1 it's hard to get convergence when the thread explodes exponential
On 24 Jan 2013, at 3:16 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 24 September 2013 13:46, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>> Cool, we seem to agree on almost everything now :-)
>
> +1 it's hard to get convergence when the thread explodes exponentially
> on several different subjects but it seems it was worth
On 24 September 2013 13:46, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> Cool, we seem to agree on almost everything now :-)
+1 it's hard to get convergence when the thread explodes exponentially
on several different subjects but it seems it was worth it.
thanks for the huge energy and ideas :-)
>
> On 24 Jan 201
Cool, we seem to agree on almost everything now :-)
On 24 Jan 2013, at 2:30 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>> 5) rename 'getShardIdentifier' to 'getShardIdentifierForAddition'
>
> Is that needed? I thought that by removing the conflicting method
> there would be no further need to clarify the metho
On 24 September 2013 14:12, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 12:54 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>>> We should for sure try to keep API's stable. On the other hand I don't see
>>> why we should not be
>>> able to change SPI contracts. With this super restrictive behaviour we are
>
On 24 Jan 2013, at 12:54 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>> We should for sure try to keep API's stable. On the other hand I don't see
>> why we should not be
>> able to change SPI contracts. With this super restrictive behaviour we are
>> seriously limiting
>> our ability to move the software forw
On 24 September 2013 09:51, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 12:04 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but trying to synthesize this discussion I
>> think that we're fundamentally agreeing that dynamic sharding is a
>> "better replacement" for static sharding.
2013/9/24 Sanne Grinovero
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but trying to synthesize this discussion I
> think that we're fundamentally agreeing that dynamic sharding is a
> "better replacement" for static sharding.
Yes, from what I understand I think that's right.
To me, the question really is what
On 24 Jan 2013, at 12:04 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but trying to synthesize this discussion I
> think that we're fundamentally agreeing that dynamic sharding is a
> "better replacement" for static sharding.
It has the potential for a replacement I think, but I don't
15 matches
Mail list logo
