On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Zach Kurey wrote:
>
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>> Yes I understood that was your suggestions; but I think that using
>> @IndexEmbedded(depth=0, {IndexPath1, IndexPath2})
>> would get you exactly what you
On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Yes I understood that was your suggestions; but I think that using
> @IndexEmbedded(depth=0, {IndexPath1, IndexPath2})
> would get you exactly what you wanted?
Ahh gotcha. I misunderstood. Yes that works for me.
>
> Just that I can still
On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> I'm not 100% convinced but please go ahead and create a JIRA. There
> are definitely good improvements to take out of this thread, we can
> flesh out the details on JIRA or after a proof of concept patch.
>
> My doubts is that I don't like a
On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>> Option 1: Explicit inclusion only
>> @IndexPaths(
>> paths={
>> @IndexPath("a.b.c"),
>> @IndexPath("d.e")
>> }
>> )
>> private SomeType type;
>
> @IndexPath allows for further extension, but I could live with s
> While I'm obviously not so excited about the exclusions idea, maybe
> I'm overseeing a very useful case; is there a compelling reason to
> want that, enough to justify the added complexity? I'm not so much
> concerned about our code complexity (which might be an issue too) but
> more about the th
On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> It still conflicts with the actual default value of depth and that there is
> no explicit way to say that it is ignored. I don't think "it seems clear"
> is a good enough reason.
That's reasonable. If everything is left in IndexEmbedded yo
On Aug 25, 2011, at 2:28 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> Or just 'include' and 'exclude'.
> I feel we are becoming overly verbose in the API design (which is besides
> this
> particular issue)
That doesn't seem clear to me. If its just include/exclude, what exactly is
being included/excluded?
On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> This complicates things. First of all it means that the "subPaths"
> property should now be named "includeSubPaths" instead, as opposing to
> "excludeSubPaths".
Yes, if 'excludeSubPaths' is provided, then 'subPaths' should be renamed to
'in
Hi,
I was the poster on the forum that triggered this conversation. Sanne
suggested I jump onto the dev mailing list for this and future suggestions, so
here I am. I'm a developer in the San Francisco bay area. I've been using
hibernate search for about a year on a project I've been working
