On 3 Jan 2014, at 15:28, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>> I think we dropped the ball on this one. I basically had a look at
>> Guillaume’s pull request.
>> His analysis was correct and his proposed patch brings back the old pre 4.4
>> behaviour
>> with minimal changes.
>
> Ok that sounds good, I co
Hi Sanne,
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> We don't have dates defined, but we can certainly release these when
> there are enough good reasons to: for example if Guillaume needs it.
It would be nice to have an official release once we have a fix for
https://hibernate.atl
On 3 April 2014 13:24, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we dropped the ball on this one. I basically had a look at
> Guillaume’s pull request.
> His analysis was correct and his proposed patch brings back the old pre 4.4
> behaviour
> with minimal changes.
Ok that sounds good, I could
Hi,
I think we dropped the ball on this one. I basically had a look at Guillaume’s
pull request.
His analysis was correct and his proposed patch brings back the old pre 4.4
behaviour
with minimal changes.
There is still the question of the indented use cases of @ContainedIn. As
discussed in th
Hi again,
I posted a pull request for the 4.5 branch:
https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-search/pull/590 . Comments
welcome!
I included a rather large test case I have extracted from our app.
It's simplified but I think you should get the idea by looking at it.
All tests passes.
FWIW, I fin
Hi Sanne,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> However - I might not have fully grasped this yet - but I'm thinking
> that this is a feature request and not a bugfix that should be hastily
> applied on 4.4.
It's not a feature request. 4.4 changed this behavior. It was worki
On 28 March 2014 11:37, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>
> On 28 Jan 2014, at 12:16, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
>> We could use either a different annotation or a flag
>>
>>@ContainedIn(someVerySmartName=SomeVerySmartValue)
>
> I was also wondering whether a whole new annotation would make sense, bu
On 28 Jan 2014, at 12:16, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> We could use either a different annotation or a flag
>
>@ContainedIn(someVerySmartName=SomeVerySmartValue)
I was also wondering whether a whole new annotation would make sense, but
nothing intuitive
came to mind right away. I guess @Con
We could use either a different annotation or a flag
@ContainedIn(someVerySmartName=SomeVerySmartValue)
On Fri 2014-03-28 11:44, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>
> On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Guillaume Smet wrote:
>
> > This one is really a blocker for us as we have to put something into
> > produ
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> This one is really a blocker for us as we have to put something into
> production really soon with 4.4.2 and we can't do it atm. I take the
> liberty to open a JIRA issue so that I can start working on a PR with
> a test showing what we do and a
On 27 Jan 2014, at 14:46, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> I don't think a test would be useful to understand what we do. Here
> are a few additional information about our business case.
Not sure. I think it always helps to see the whole picture.
> The fact is that we have complex business rules which
Hardy,
This one is really a blocker for us as we have to put something into
production really soon with 4.4.2 and we can't do it atm. I take the
liberty to open a JIRA issue so that I can start working on a PR with
a test showing what we do and a fix.
While it looks like it was not an intented fe
Hi Hardy,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> I think an example/test would be awesome. Then we have some concrete example
> to base our discussion upon.
I don't think a test would be useful to understand what we do. Here
are a few additional information about our busine
On 27 Jan 2014, at 11:35, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> FWIW, we tried to work around it by adding @IndexedEmbedded(depth = 0)
> but as we also have @ContainedIn on transient methods, we can't work
> around it totally.
>
> As usual we are committed to work on a test case and fix once we agree
> it sh
On 27 Jan 2014, at 11:03, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> Before 4.4, when you add a @ContainedIn to a property without the
> corresponding @IndexedEmbedded, they were still added and taken into
> account in the dependency resolution which was quite useful to declare
> dependencies between entities with
FWIW, we tried to work around it by adding @IndexedEmbedded(depth = 0)
but as we also have @ContainedIn on transient methods, we can't work
around it totally.
As usual we are committed to work on a test case and fix once we agree
it should be fixed.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Guillaume Sme
16 matches
Mail list logo
