>> @IndexedEmbedded
>> @DateBridge(resolution=Resolution.DAY)
>> private Set<Date> views;
>> Of course this clashes in case people want both the proposed behavior
>> and use a custom field bridge in parallel. But such feature is not
>> supported by the currently proposed syntax either
>
> That's great, it is much cleaner. I was leaning for the "less
> annotations, we can figure it out" but indeed I like the "least
> surprise" principle more, and this is not more verbose either. Though
> Davide will hate me as binding the bridge will need to be different
> than his current pull request :)
> Davide, what do you think of this? And can you add the agreed points
> to the unit tests, mainly the DateBridge, resolution and NumericField
> tests with custom precision, and above all checking for the capability
> to override whatever your patch does with a custom bridge?
I find @IndexedEmbedded as ambiguous, besides you are adding an additional
annotation
since @ElementCollection is still there, right? Just saying there are
quite a few annotations.
Note that @ElementCollection is the JPA annotation that might or might not be present
(HSearch on Infinispan doesn't use JPA annotations).
My reasoning for liking @IndexedEmbedded is that whether basic, embeddable or entity
collection, it's still a collection and we still embed the information into the
index.