On Dec 6, 2012 7:43 AM, "Emmanuel Bernard" wrote:
>
> My fear was simply that TypeDescriptor was a class hosted on Hibernate
> ORM's codebase. But in retrospect I made that up on my own.
>
> If we have access to the type information via a given class - say
> TypeDescriptor - and that TypeDescript
My fear was simply that TypeDescriptor was a class hosted on Hibernate
ORM's codebase. But in retrospect I made that up on my own.
If we have access to the type information via a given class - say
TypeDescriptor - and that TypeDescriptor is hosted on the query parser
project then, we don't have a
By "type system" do you mean the TypeDescriptor pull request? If not,
you'll have to clarify.
If so...
The idea is simple. There are a number of things that the parser needs
to know in order to figure out the semantics of the query; this
question of "types" is just one thing. However, ORM a
That's what I'm hoping too, but since I've not fully grasped the
proposed solution for the type system I'm not sure: I need to read the
new ORM code.
If we really can just plug a different QueryTranslatorFactory in ORM,
how does this affect our release options on OGM?
On 5 December 2012 15:44, S
Whether we change the standard QueryTranslatorFactory in ORM doesn't
affect the options we have about releasing OGM, correct Emmanuel?
Let's make sure we can release OGM at any time; having Hibernate ORM
using the new parser by default might cleanup some code but I hope we
can make sure this doesn
I am not completely understanding the question. You don't *need*
Hibernate 5, you could just plug in a custom QueryTranslatorFactory as
we discussed on irc. The discussion here was changing the standard
QueryTranslatorFactory to use this new Antlr parser.
On Dec 5, 2012 8:46 AM, "Sanne Grinov
Do we need Hibernate 5 to resolve those type system issues?
If so, is there an alternative solution which wouldn't necessarily
couple the OGM lifecycle with ORM ? (just for the time being)
On 4 December 2012 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> Moving to dev mailing list.
>
> On Tue 2012-12-04 12:0
Moving to dev mailing list.
On Tue 2012-12-04 12:09, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Can we have such discussions on the dev list?
>
> Anyway, that's why I said about developing the parser separately but in
> tandem and synching later. That gives us that flexibility.
>
> Because it's not been decided t
