>
>> Gunnar, the direct HQL->ES-QL work is not as trivial as it seems. I don’t
>> think ElasticSearch can search on fields that are not explicitly indexed.
>> (Jiri correct me if I’m wrong). So we would need to guess or anticipate
>> which field wants to be indexed and how “transparently”. Not the
>From what I could look at, AssociationPersister.collectionPersister() +
>inverse() is only called in
>OgmCollectionPersister.updateInverseSideOfAssociationNavigation() and the
>owning side CollectionPersister is provided.
So to answer your question
> is the collection persister passed to
> A
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Gunnar Morling
wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for writing up these rules. That's very valuable information for
> users and us as well.
>
> Only two remarks on the following:
>
> > The use of package names for this is unfortunately not granular enough
> oftentimes.
This is all certainly true. I think specifically of things like
persisters, which by "package break down" are currently considered API.
Also, as far as OSGi, I would suggest not worrying about that so much
(Gunnar). Keep in mind that even today this OSGi manifest info is
generated by build logic
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Emmanuel Bernard
wrote:
> Awesome write up. I will for sure steal a lot of it :)
>
> A few random comments:
>
> - once we are sufficiently happy, we probably should move this to the
> website
>
That was the intent :)
> - you mention backward compatibility and
On 25 Jan 2014, at 18:37, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> This is all certainly true. I think specifically of things like
> persisters, which by "package break down" are currently considered API.
>
> Also, as far as OSGi, I would suggest not worrying about that so much
> (Gunnar). Keep in mind that e
2014-08-25 18:33 GMT+02:00 Steve Ebersole :
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Gunnar Morling
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for writing up these rules. That's very valuable information for
>> users and us as well.
>>
>> Only two remarks on the following:
>>
>> > The use of package names fo
2014-08-25 23:55 GMT+02:00 Hardy Ferentschik :
>
> On 25 Jan 2014, at 18:37, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
> > This is all certainly true. I think specifically of things like
> > persisters, which by "package break down" are currently considered API.
> >
> > Also, as far as OSGi, I would suggest not w
2014-08-25 18:37 GMT+02:00 Steve Ebersole :
> This is all certainly true. I think specifically of things like
> persisters, which by "package break down" are currently considered API.
>
That's a good example. You say based on their package they are considered
API, but is that what you actually w
