I did end up adding support for controlling this via a setting[1]. Now,
when recognizing ordinal parameters (as distinct from positional
parameters, i.e. ?1) we define the "base" as:
if ( factory.getSessionFactoryOptions().isJpaBootstrap() ) {
ordinalParameterBase = 1;
}
else {
There are some conceptual mismatch problem that IMO stem from the L2C SPI.
We are discussing that all as part of
https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-10707
Whether that affects you really depends how you configure caching. If you
try to reuse regions for different types of data (entity, col
Wrong thread?
Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Steve Ebersole:
> There are some conceptual mismatch problem that IMO stem from the L2C
> SPI. We are discussing that all as part of
> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-10707
>
> Whether that affects you really depends how you configure cach
Nope. You asked:
Are the problems with Hibernate 5.1+ and Infinispan fixed yet? I didn't
consider upgrading yet because I read of some issues.
Now its possibly I misread your reference to HIbernate+Infinispan problems
to mean the only ones I know of. hence the HHH-10707 reference. If you
meant
Ahh okay, I see. Sorry, I didn't fully read my previous mail and forgot
I asked that question ^^
Well then I'll try upgrading to 5.2 and hope for the best :)
So are you considering merging that to 5.2 then?
Am 23.09.2016 um 18:36 schrieb Steve Ebersole:
> Nope. You asked:
>
> Are the problems
Depends on the "fix" we all agree on. Mainly whether that leads to any
non-compatible SPI changes.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:41 AM Christian Beikov <
christian.bei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahh okay, I see. Sorry, I didn't fully read my previous mail and forgot I
> asked that question ^^
> Well t
Is the fix I proposed in my
PR(https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/1561) non-compatible?
Did I miss discussion about that somewhere or didn't you have time to
review that yet?
Am 23.09.2016 um 18:50 schrieb Steve Ebersole:
> Depends on the "fix" we all agree on. Mainly whether that
Well again we were just talking about HHH-10707 and you asked "will it be
integrated upstream"...
I can tell by your reaction that you really were asking whether *your*
change would be integrated upstream, but that was not obviously from your
email :)
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:32 PM Christian B
Oh sorry, I assumed HHH-10707 not affecting me is implied ;P
No I am talking about the fix for HHH-9329 that I proposed.
Am 23.09.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Steve Ebersole:
> Well again we were just talking about HHH-10707 and you asked "will it
> be integrated upstream"...
>
> I can tell by your reac
+1 to default of 1.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> I did end up adding support for controlling this via a setting[1]. Now,
> when recognizing ordinal parameters (as distinct from positional
> parameters, i.e. ?1) we define the "base" as:
>
>if ( factory.getSessionF
10 matches
Mail list logo
