On 27 May 2014 20:55, Hardy Ferentschik <ha...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >>> So what is your take on this then? Leave as is and keep the fact that the >>> default depth value changes its default value depending >>> on whether or not includePaths is used? That would be option >>> >>> #3 Keep status quo for value of depth parameter >>> >>> I raised the concern that the simple @IndexEmbedded is now not valid >>> anymore as well before. I guess the question is what you give more >>> importance, >>> ability to use the annotation with its default values or have consistent >>> default values which don’t change. >>> >>> I still think consistency is more important and #2 is the better approach. >>> However, before going to #1, I would rather join you and keep the status quo >>> with #3. >>> >>> Btw, enforcing a depth or includePath value might have the advantage of >>> creating smaller (more targeted) indexes, since we less likely include >>> fields which are need targeted by a query. >> >> #3 then #2 for me. I really like #3 better though for the reason I explained. >> We should bet at horse races together ;) > > Tough negotiations. @Sanne, you brought this depth default of 0 up. WDYT?
My thought is that this new attribute is redundant: it seems we all agree that the ids should not be included by default, and as a power user I can opt to use includePath to force inclusion. So the @IndexEmbedded(includeEmbeddedObjectId=[boolean]) is not strictly needed. Why not remove it? I don't feel strongly about it, and since you all seemed to agree on wanting this I'm ok to merge the current proposal, but I think it's worthwile to return on this as a re-wrap since we seemed to agree on the basic needs of "slim index by default", the only doubt I have is if we really need two different ways to override the defaults. Sanne _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
