In all versions of Hibernate to-date we have required that the Java type of
an id be Serializable. Strictly speaking JPA has no such restriction - it
says ids can be any Object type *unless* the entity is to be serialized, in
which case the id must be Serializable (duh).
As we transition into 6.0
+1 for removing the Serializable restriction
On 27 March 2017 at 18:37, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> In all versions of Hibernate to-date we have required that the Java type of
> an id be Serializable. Strictly speaking JPA has no such restriction - it
> says ids can be any Object type *unless* the
+1 for that. Stumbled over that once or twice in the past and wondered
what the reasons were.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
*Christian Beikov*
Am 27.03.2017 um 19:37 schrieb Steve Ebersole:
> In all versions of Hibernate to-date
+1
I remember that Spring Data CRUDRepository has this restriction that ID
extends Serializable just because Hibernate required it so. I agree that we
should drop this restriction and allow non-Serializable @Id as other JPA
providers.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Christian Beikov <
christian.
+1, as proposed a long time ago :)
On 28 March 2017 at 07:52, Vlad Mihalcea wrote:
> +1
>
> I remember that Spring Data CRUDRepository has this restriction that ID
> extends Serializable just because Hibernate required it so. I agree that we
> should drop this restriction and allow non-Serializab
We've all "proposed" it at some point Sanne ;) The bigger question is when
to do it since it means API changes.
But it sounds like everyone is on board for that for 6.0
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 6:54 AM Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> +1, as proposed a long time ago :)
>
> On 28 March 2017 at 07:52, Vlad
+1 for 6.0
On 03/28/2017 08:33 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> We've all "proposed" it at some point Sanne ;) The bigger question is when
> to do it since it means API changes.
>
> But it sounds like everyone is on board for that for 6.0
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 6:54 AM Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>>
