I knew of the request. Its just that on the EE group I am sure the decision will be consistency.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:11 AM Yoann Rodiere <yo...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > Regarding JPA adopting scrolling as a feature, what I suggest simply > follows what Hibernate ans JPA already do for other Query returns. Today > it is completely inconsistent between Query#scroll and Query#list e.g.. I > am just suggesting making that consistent. > > Sure. I just wanted to point out that scrolling isn't part of JPA yet, but > there are plans to add it, so we might as well try to know what form it > will take in JPA 2.2 in order to make the change future-proof. > > To be perfectly clear: it was just a heads-up because I came accross this > JPA ticket a few weeks ago, I don't have any specific concern in mind. If > you think it's not relevant, sorry for the noise. > > > Yoann Rodière <yo...@hibernate.org> > Hibernate NoORM Team > > On 2 January 2017 at 12:42, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > org.hibernate.query.Query extends javax.persistence.TypedQuery since 5.2, > so it already has been parameterized. > > Regarding JPA adopting scrolling as a feature, what I suggest simply > follows what Hibernate ans JPA already do for other Query returns. Today > it is completely inconsistent between Query#scroll and Query#list e.g.. I > am just suggesting making that consistent. > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:36 AM Yoann Rodiere <yo...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > 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
