2014-06-24 14:55 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard
On 24 Jun 2014, at 11:50, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
> Yes, today we don't.
> But is there any reason for not using the value column name?
Not more that the ones I outlined in this thread.
> In fact that's what my pending PR
does for MongoDB. Right now it even
allows to work with different value column names for the same table (either in the same or
in different documents/records) but I plan to add a check disallowing this for the sake of
portability to stores with a fixed schema.
I don’t follow that one. A fixed schema would be fine here, just with two columns instead
of one, no?
Yes, this could work, though I'm not sure when one would actually want to make use of
such an approach. I guess we can leave it out for now and wait until we actually have
store with a fixed schema.
Btw. ORM itself stumbles upon such configuration (the table is generated with one of the
two columns, causing an error when trying to select from the other one).
Yes, I suspected so. The generation gets lost in that. But one can write its own DDL