But then the JSON binding technology should be responsible for the
property anme conversion too, right? After all that is the layer that
does this change.
On Thu 2013-09-19 10:35, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> I also think that the conversion of the ConstraintViolation(s) into another
> format is more i
Nice :)
On Mon 2013-09-09 15:38, Guillaume SCHEIBEL wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After SoftShake (and few JUGs), I'm proud (and kind of exited) to announce
> my Tool In Action titled "a hint of NoSQL into my Java EE" has been
> approved.
>
> See you there :)
> Guillaume
>
On 2 Jan 2013, at 2:46 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> But then the JSON binding technology should be responsible for the
> property anme conversion too, right? After all that is the layer that
> does this change.
That would be my initially gut feeling as well.
--Hardy
_
Yes that was a mistake. It was done as you say to make things simpler
for the user but it has created headaches for us since then.
On Thu 2013-09-19 16:15, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Discussing about some hibernate-search-engine complexities with Hardy
> on IRC, we came to the agreement that the way
Turning the problem upside down, I wonder if IndexShardingStrategy
should be deprecated and have SharIdentifierProvider as the API a user
would implement. It makes for simpler things. What would we lose feature
wise?
Emmanuel
On Fri 2013-09-20 17:30, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here comes
Thanks, I'm scheduled on Monday at 6:05PM.
Hope to see you (all) there :)
Guillaume
PS: if someone could dedicate ~1h within the month for a dry-run session, I
would appreciate it.
Guillaume
2013/10/2 Emmanuel Bernard
> Nice :)
>
> On Mon 2013-09-09 15:38, Guillaume SCHEIBEL wrote:
> > Hello
On 2 Jan 2013, at 3:06 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> Turning the problem upside down, I wonder if IndexShardingStrategy
> should be deprecated and have SharIdentifierProvider as the API a user
> would implement. It makes for simpler things. What would we lose feature
> wise?
That is exactly wha
Good idea. Plan a hangout and force Davide and Gunnar to be there. I'll
try and join as well.
Avoid Oct 14-16th, 22th-23rd and 28th -> Nov 1st
Emmanuel
On Wed 2013-10-02 15:14, Guillaume SCHEIBEL wrote:
> Thanks, I'm scheduled on Monday at 6:05PM.
>
> Hope to see you (all) there :)
> Guillaume
>
On Wed 2013-10-02 15:19, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>
> On 2 Jan 2013, at 3:06 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
> > Turning the problem upside down, I wonder if IndexShardingStrategy
> > should be deprecated and have SharIdentifierProvider as the API a user
> > would implement. It makes for simpler t
Sounds like a good idea.
Let me know when you have a date.
By the way, congratulations for the event :)
Cheers,
Davide
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> Good idea. Plan a hangout and force Davide and Gunnar to be there. I'll
> try and join as well.
> Avoid Oct 14-16th,
Sorry if it looks like we had abandoned this thread:
we continued the discussion in the first thread opened by Hardy.
On 2 October 2013 15:16, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> On Wed 2013-10-02 15:19, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Jan 2013, at 3:06 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>>
>> > Turning the
On Tue 2013-09-24 10:51, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> String[] getShardIdentifiers(Class entity, Serializable id, String
> idInString);
>
> all together. Here is my reasoning. AFAIU, the method is there for the
> deletion of
> documents. In this case we don't have the Lucene document nor the entit
12 matches
Mail list logo
