On Aug 31, 2012 3:02 AM, "Max Rydahl Andersen"
wrote:
>
> and having
>
> On 31 Aug 2012, at 01:59, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
> > Correct. The current proposal has them passed in as settings.
>
> okey, so I must be missing something - since no access to database
metadata how is the autodetection of
and having
On 31 Aug 2012, at 01:59, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Correct. The current proposal has them passed in as settings.
okey, so I must be missing something - since no access to database metadata how
is the autodetection of name/version supposed to work when users have not
passed in the
Correct. The current proposal has them passed in as settings.
Yes, we could "mock" DatabaseMetadata, but there is a lot there
including access to the Connection from which the DatabaseMetadata was
supposedly retrieved.
On Thu 30 Aug 2012 02:31:56 AM CDT, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> I imagine the
I imagine the DB name + version will be provided by the user somehow.
We could also have Hibernate build a DatabaseMetadata implementation returning
the data provided by the user.
That would avoid changing the contract. The main drawback is that
DatabaseMetadata has many more methods
we would not
Like I said in the original email, the connection may or may not be
available. Which means we cannot rely on it being available. Nor do
we rely on it being available today either btw. The difference is just
that today in those cases we expect the user to manually name the
dialect to use.
On
hmm - any reason why jpa won't pass in DatabaseMetadata ?
how would one identify name and version anyway if that is not available ?
/max
On 29 Aug 2012, at 16:43, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> I think we need to consider changing DialectResolver to fit with some
> upcoming JPA 2.1 features.
>
> JP
