Re: [hibernate-dev] Another @Access quandry

One thing I suggested on IRC (because of the awesomely centralized job you did here) was to possibly extract this into a strategy. We could have a legacy one that follows what Emmanuel decided initially, and then another that does what we all agree here as the correct thing moving forward. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org&gt;wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > > > I really like the general approach you did in metamodel. In fact, even > though I heavily refactored most of that package, the way annotated members > are found is largely unchanged. > > > > But specifically, take Sanne's example. Access(PROPERTY) for the > class. Then for one attribute they want field *access* (runtime). How > would you see that? Like I said initially, I think there are 2 potentially > valid ways to support this. > > > > First, > > > > @Entity > > @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY) > > public class Course3 { > > @Id > > @GeneratedValue > > @Access(AccessType.FIELD) > > private long id; > > ... > > > > public long getId() { > > return id; > > } > > ... > > } > > > > This approach gives credence to the passage I have been quoting here: > "It is not permitted to specify a field as Access(PROPERTY) or a property > as Access(FIELD)". > > > > > > Second, > > > > @Entity > > @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY) > > public class Course3 { > > private long id; > > ... > > > > @Id > > @GeneratedValue > > @Access(AccessType.FIELD) > > public long getId() { > > return id; > > } > > ... > > } > > > > I prefer the first one. > > I prefer #1 as well