[hibernate-dev] Enum mapping in hbm.xml

[Steve Ebersole]

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 at hibernate.org>
wrote:

>
> On 19 Jul 2015, at 16:53, Steve Ebersole <steve at 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
>
>