Well, first things first :)
Does anyone disagree with making this a requirement to be fully expressed
in the mapping? In other words, does anyone disagree fully resolving the
"enum type" (ordinal/name)
in org.hibernate.type.EnumType#setParameterValues?
This would mean getting rid of the hooks in nullSafeSet/nullSafeGet as they
would be pointless.
As far as the default type, I don't feel that strongly. Like I said, to me
neither is a really compelling way to map enums; names are only slightly
better that ordinals imo. I am ok with the consistency aspect.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:25 AM Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
On 19 Jul 2015, at 16:53, Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
What I propose is that we change this. I am kind of torn as to the default
tbh. I think JPA's default of ORDINAL is the wrong choice. I think NAMED
is the better choice. Well technically I think an independent mapping code
it best. But strictly between ORDINAL/NAMED, I think NAMED is better. So
if everyone agrees that we change this to definitively determine the enum
mapping up front, which style do we choose as the default. Obviously the
big argument for choosing ORDINAL is consistency with annotations.
Even if like you I prefer NAMED over ORDINAL, I would prefer consistency
with annotations. If you feel strongly on the subject, I think the other
way is fine too since:
* the recommendation is to be explicit
* hbm is already quite a different beast than annotations/orm.xml