For what it's worth, changing the signature indeed seems appropriate to me: the fewer object arrays, the better. Your proposal would require making Query parameterized too, though. I'm not really up-to-date with the current state of 6.0, but I guess it's already done or being done.
Anyway, the only think I wanted to say was: if we break the API, maybe we should try to make sure we won't have to break it again soon. There has been some discussions about adding scrolling to the JPA spec: https://java.net/jira/browse/JPA_SPEC-89 . Maybe it would be worth it to ask for advice on this ticket, so as to limit the risk of having to break this API again, because the spec would introduce an incompatible signature? Not sure there would be many reactions, judging by the low activity on the ticket, but who knows... Yoann Rodière <yo...@hibernate.org> Hibernate NoORM Team On 27 December 2016 at 22:02, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > FWIW my inclination is to just change the existing signatures. 6.0 is a > major release with major changes already wrt querying. > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:01 PM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> > wrote: > > > For 6.0 I'd like to also make ScrollableResults parameterized wrt the > "row > > type". E.g. > > > > ScrollableResults<Person> sr = session.createQuery( ..., Person.class > > ).scroll(); > > > > However that changes the signature of its methods returning a "row" > > (currently always defined as Object[]). > > > > How would everyone prefer we handle this? Do I just change the > signatures > > of the existing methods? Or add new methods? > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
