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>wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org> 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