Re: [hibernate-dev] Envers: Mapped-superclasses extended by embeddabables

From: "Adam Warski" <adam(a)warski.org&gt; To: "Gail Badner" <gbadner(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: adam(a)hibernate.org, "Hibernate" <hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Łukasz Antoniak" <lukasz.antoniak(a)gmail.com&gt; Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:45:28 PM Subject: Re: Envers: Mapped-superclasses extended by embeddabables Sorry, no idea why I missed that email. So the basic rule is: - fields from a non-audited mapped superclass are never audited, unless an @AuditOverride is specified - if the mapped superclass is audited, then its fields are of course audited as well I don’t think we want to get into supporting a @AuditOverride(“b.field”) syntax, as it complicates the whole thing. When an @AO is placed on a component, the names refer to what is inside the component, so I guess we can use it here? To address the specific questions: > In the following, A.b.intValue should be audited; A.b.strValue should not > be audited. > > @Entity > @Audited > public class A{ > ... > private B b; > ... > } > > @Embeddable > public class B extends AbstractB { > private int intValue; > } > > @MappedSuperclass > public class AbstractB { > private String strValue; > } Looks good > In the following, both A.b.intValue and A.b.strValue should be audited: > > @Entity > @Audited > @AuditOverride( name="b.strValue" ) > public class A{ > ... > private B b; > ... > } > > @Embeddable > public class B extends AbstractB { > private int intValue; > } > > @MappedSuperclass > public class AbstractB { > private String strValue; > } As above, I don’t think we want to supoprt @AO(name=“b.strValue”)? To audit b.strValue, you’d have to add an @AO(name=“strValue”, forClass=AbstractB.class) on the b field directly. > In the following, both A.b.intValue and A.b.strValue should be audited: > > @Entity > @Audited > public class A{ > ... > private B b; > ... > } > > @Embeddable > public class B extends AbstractB { > private int intValue; > } > > @MappedSuperclass > @Audited > public class AbstractB { > private String strValue; > } Yes > In the following, both A.b.intValue and A.b.strValue should be audited. > > @Entity > @Audited > public class A{ > ... > private B b; > ... > } > > @Embeddable > @AuditOverride( class=AbstractB.class ) > public class B extends AbstractB { > private int intValue; > } > > @MappedSuperclass > public class AbstractB { > private String strValue; > } Yes > What should be the outcome of the following? Should A.b.strValue still be > audited even though A.b is explicitly not audited? > > @Entity > @Audited > public class A{ > ... > @NotAudited > private B b; > ... > } > > @Embeddable > public class B extends AbstractB { > private int intValue; > } > > @MappedSuperclass > @Audited > public class AbstractB { > private String strValue; > } @NotAudited has precedence - so not audited. I hope things are a bit clearer :). I suppose we should document these rules. If, of course, you think these rules are sound - any other ideas are always welcome :) Adam -- Adam Warski http://twitter.com/#!/adamwarski http://www.softwaremill.com http://www.warski.org