From both the documentation and the Hibernate Search In Action book it was unclear to me that simple collections were not able to be indexed out of the box by just adding a @IndexEmbedded or @Field annotation, and instead require a custom field bridge. When I say simple collection I mean Sets/Lists/Collections of Integer/Double/String/Float/etc. It would seem, given the already advanced indexing support in Hibernate Search, that this really should be a basic out of the box feature as I'm sure most of the folks using Search have had to implement such a bridge at some point.

From both the documentation and the Hibernate Search In Action book it was unclear to me that simple collections were not able to be indexed out of the box by just adding a @IndexEmbedded or @Field annotation, and instead require a custom field bridge. When I say simple collection I mean Sets/Lists/Collections of Integer/Double/String/Float/etc. It would seem, given the already advanced indexing support in Hibernate Search, that this really should be a basic out of the box feature as I'm sure most of the folks using Search have had to implement such a bridge at some point.

Add Indexing Support(out of the box) For Simple Collections, Like Set<Integer> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Key: HSEARCH-539 URL: http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HSEARCH-539 Project: Hibernate Search Issue Type: New Feature Components: mapping Affects Versions: 3.2.0.Final Environment: N/A Reporter: Zach Kurey Fix For: 3.4.0.Beta1 From both the documentation and the Hibernate Search In Action book it was unclear to me that simple collections were not able to be indexed out of the box by just adding a @IndexEmbedded or @Field annotation, and instead require a custom field bridge. When I say simple collection I mean Sets/Lists/Collections of Integer/Double/String/Float/etc. It would seem, given the already advanced indexing support in Hibernate Search, that this really should be a basic out of the box feature as I'm sure most of the folks using Search have had to implement such a bridge at some point. Note that I could still be missing an non-obvious feature or there may be a good reason for not providing it via @IndexEmbedded or @Field automatically. To be completely clear I have: @CollectionOfElements @JoinTable(name="enrollment_groups", joinColumns={@JoinColumn(name="enrollee_id")}) @Column(name="enrollment_group_id") @IndexedEmbedded private Set<String> utilityEnrollmentGroups; If I were to change this to a group of embedded types, everything gets indexed just fine. For Hibernate libraries in use I have: Core: 3.5.2 Search: 3.2.0

Add Indexing Support(out of the box) For Simple Collections, Like Set<Integer> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Key: HSEARCH-539 URL: http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HSEARCH-539 Project: Hibernate Search Issue Type: New Feature Components: mapping Affects Versions: 3.2.0.Final Environment: N/A Reporter: Zach Kurey Fix For: 3.5 From both the documentation and the Hibernate Search In Action book it was unclear to me that simple collections were not able to be indexed out of the box by just adding a @IndexEmbedded or @Field annotation, and instead require a custom field bridge. When I say simple collection I mean Sets/Lists/Collections of Integer/Double/String/Float/etc. It would seem, given the already advanced indexing support in Hibernate Search, that this really should be a basic out of the box feature as I'm sure most of the folks using Search have had to implement such a bridge at some point. Note that I could still be missing an non-obvious feature or there may be a good reason for not providing it via @IndexEmbedded or @Field automatically. To be completely clear I have: @CollectionOfElements @JoinTable(name="enrollment_groups", joinColumns={@JoinColumn(name="enrollee_id")}) @Column(name="enrollment_group_id") @IndexedEmbedded private Set<String> utilityEnrollmentGroups; If I were to change this to a group of embedded types, everything gets indexed just fine. For Hibernate libraries in use I have: Core: 3.5.2 Search: 3.2.0

Add Indexing Support(out of the box) For Simple Collections, Like Set<Integer> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Key: HSEARCH-539 URL: http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HSEARCH-539 Project: Hibernate Search Issue Type: New Feature Components: mapping Affects Versions: 3.2.0.Final Environment: N/A Reporter: Zach Kurey Assignee: Davide D'Alto Fix For: 4.0.0.Alpha2 From both the documentation and the Hibernate Search In Action book it was unclear to me that simple collections were not able to be indexed out of the box by just adding a @IndexEmbedded or @Field annotation, and instead require a custom field bridge. When I say simple collection I mean Sets/Lists/Collections of Integer/Double/String/Float/etc. It would seem, given the already advanced indexing support in Hibernate Search, that this really should be a basic out of the box feature as I'm sure most of the folks using Search have had to implement such a bridge at some point. Note that I could still be missing an non-obvious feature or there may be a good reason for not providing it via @IndexEmbedded or @Field automatically. To be completely clear I have: @CollectionOfElements @JoinTable(name="enrollment_groups", joinColumns={@JoinColumn(name="enrollee_id")}) @Column(name="enrollment_group_id") @IndexedEmbedded private Set<String> utilityEnrollmentGroups; If I were to change this to a group of embedded types, everything gets indexed just fine. For Hibernate libraries in use I have: Core: 3.5.2 Search: 3.2.0