[hibernate-dev] Another @Access quandry

[Steve Ebersole]

BTW, here is the topical guide I have started for this:
https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/blob/f7b779ec60281408da80590ab2b0fdb5b98accf5/documentation/src/main/asciidoc/topical/accesstype/AccessType.adoc



On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:

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