Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking.
TBH I'm not sure what to think of this yet.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:08 PM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-7129
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:37 PM Gail Badner wrote:
>
>> IIUC, a natural ID should apply to an e
https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-7129
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:37 PM Gail Badner wrote:
> IIUC, a natural ID should apply to an entire entity hierarchy. Is that
> true?
>
> HHH-12085 reports a "bug" when a natural ID is mapped on a non-root
> entity. Is that expected? Is this somethi
IIUC, a natural ID should apply to an entire entity hierarchy. Is that true?
HHH-12085 reports a "bug" when a natural ID is mapped on a non-root
entity. Is that expected? Is this something we may want to support in
the future?
Thanks,
Gail
___
hibernate
Thats not legal definition of natural ids. Only the *root entity* can
define natural ids, here A.
On Thu 01 Mar 2012 11:11:47 AM CST, Demetz, Guenther wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
>>> Caching should be using the root persister of the hierarchy for cache keys.
>
> Hm, it probably depends on how you fix
Hi Steve,
>> Caching should be using the root persister of the hierarchy for cache keys.
Hm, it probably depends on how you fixed HHH-7129.
Is following hierarchy allowed after HHH-7129 ?
@Entity
class A {
@Id
int id;
}
@Entity
class Subclass1 extends A {
@NaturalId
String name;
}
@
Hi Steve,
>> Caching should be using the root persister of the hierarchy for cache keys.
Not precisely. Please take a look at following example:
class A {
@Id
int id;
}
class B extends A
On 03/01/2012 04:09 AM, Demetz, Guenther wrote:
>>> I will open regarding issue with testcase
ards
> Günther Demetz
>
> -Original Message-
> From: hibernate-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:hibernate-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Steve Ebersole
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:16 PM
> To: hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: [hibernate-dev] N
] On Behalf Of Steve Ebersole
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:16 PM
To: hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [hibernate-dev] Natural ids and inheritance
(articlenumber) is already unique. So what is the point of
(articlenumber,cartonId)?
Your description and proposed fix of HHH-7113 all
(articlenumber) is already unique. So what is the point of
(articlenumber,cartonId)?
Your description and proposed fix of HHH-7113 all centered around
choosing the "right persister" to use for cache keys, so I naturally
assumed the problem was due to the unsupported way you were defining the
>> I will open regarding issue with testcase asap.
Opened https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/HHH-7133
regards
G.Demetz
___
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
John Verhaeg wrote: I probably don't understand the complexities with this, but
wouldn't the ID values in AA have to be completely independent of the values in
A?
Yes, that's exactly what I'd expected originally and that's it what would be a
nice to have !
In our model for example we have fol
I probably don't understand the complexities with this, but wouldn't the ID
values in AA have to be completely independent of the values in A?
> On 28 févr. 2012, at 17:59, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> Another discrepancy between hbm.xml and annotations currently is the
>> definition of natural i
On 28 févr. 2012, at 17:59, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Another discrepancy between hbm.xml and annotations currently is the
> definition of natural ids. hbm.xml only allows natural ids to be
> defined on the root entity, annotations allow it to be defined on any
> level of the hierarchy, even ac
Another discrepancy between hbm.xml and annotations currently is the
definition of natural ids. hbm.xml only allows natural ids to be
defined on the root entity, annotations allow it to be defined on any
level of the hierarchy, even across classes.
We need to decide what we want to support. 2
14 matches
Mail list logo
