On 27 May 2014 20:55, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>> So what is your take on this then? Leave as is and keep the fact that the default
depth value changes its default value depending
>> on whether or not includePaths is used? That would be option
>>
>> #3 Keep status quo for value of depth parameter
>>
>> I raised the concern that the simple @IndexEmbedded is now not valid anymore as
well before. I guess the question is what you give more importance,
>> ability to use the annotation with its default values or have consistent default
values which don’t change.
>>
>> I still think consistency is more important and #2 is the better approach.
However, before going to #1, I would rather join you and keep the status quo
>> with #3.
>>
>> Btw, enforcing a depth or includePath value might have the advantage of creating
smaller (more targeted) indexes, since we less likely include
>> fields which are need targeted by a query.
>
> #3 then #2 for me. I really like #3 better though for the reason I explained.
> We should bet at horse races together ;)
Tough negotiations. @Sanne, you brought this depth default of 0 up. WDYT?
My thought is that this new attribute is redundant: it seems we all
agree that the ids should not be included by default, and as a power
user I can opt to use includePath to force inclusion.
So the @IndexEmbedded(includeEmbeddedObjectId=[boolean]) is not
strictly needed. Why not remove it?
I don't feel strongly about it, and since you all seemed to agree on
wanting this I'm ok to merge the current proposal, but I think it's
worthwile to return on this as a re-wrap since we seemed to agree on
the basic needs of "slim index by default", the only doubt I have is
if we really need two different ways to override the defaults.
Sanne