Yep. I started with a dynamic boost for field and one for class, changed it
because I didn't think the concept fit in with the existing annotations. I
will make the updates and send a new patch. After I've complteted this i
will look at moving to interface. I'll get the updated patch to you as soon
as I can.
Cheers
Amin
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org>wrote:
> About the patch you've sent,
> There are two issues, I think:
>
> - providedId should be on IndexedMapping, or is there a reason to put
> @ProvidedId on a non @Indexed entity?
> - you need to create distinct DynamicBoostOnClass and
> DynamicboostOnProperty as the "parent" properties are different and that
> would confuse people.
> - class bridge mapping seems fine though I could not apply it as it's not
> a separate patch
>
> BTW the add-ons really show that we need this interface approach to inherit
> methods from the parent context. It's getting messy and very hard to
> properly add a new method wo forgetting a few places.
>
>
> On 4 déc. 09, at 10:49, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
> Hello,Let
>> I'll review your patches today hopefully.
>> I am wondering if using Hg or Git could help you / us and what would
>> be the impact on the existing architecture.
>>
>> wrt HSEARCH-429
>> hibernate.search.mapping_model should be both a Class and a String
>> (configuration). The code must account for that.
>> I think the code should not be in SearchConfigurationFromHibernateCore
>> as it is equally useful for non Hibernate Core usages. It but be next
>> to the core of Hibernate Search's initialization.
>>
>> On 4 déc. 09, at 09:36, Amin Mohammed-Coleman wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>>
>>> I had a go at using the @Factory and did something like this:
>>>
>>> public class SearchMappingFactory {
>>>
>>> @Factory
>>> public SearchMapping build() {
>>> SearchMapping mapping = new SearchMapping();
>>> ....build mapping
>>>
>>> return mapping;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> cfg.getProperties().put( "hibernate.search.mapping_model",
>>> SearchMappingFactory.class );
>>>
>>>
>>> In SearchConfigurationFromHibernateCore i changed :
>>>
>>>
>>> public SearchMapping getProgrammaticMapping() {
>>> if (getProperties().get( "hibernate.search.mapping_model"
>>> ) ==
>>> null) {
>>> return null;
>>> }
>>> Class<?> clazz = (Class<?>)
>>> getProperties().get( "hibernate.search.mapping_model" );
>>> Method[] methods = clazz.getMethods();
>>> SearchMapping mapping = null;
>>> boolean hasFactoryAnn = false;
>>> int count = 0;
>>> for (Method method : methods) {
>>> if (method.isAnnotationPresent(Factory.class)) {
>>> count++;
>>> hasFactoryAnn = true;
>>> if ( !method.isAccessible() ) {
>>> method.setAccessible( true );
>>> }
>>> try {
>>> Object instance =
>>> clazz.newInstance();
>>> mapping = (SearchMapping)
>>> method.invoke(instance, new Object[]
>>> {});
>>> } catch (Exception e) {
>>> throw new SearchException(e);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> if (!hasFactoryAnn) {
>>> throw new SearchException("No @Factory method
>>> defined for
>>> building programmatic api.");
>>> }
>>> if (count > 1) {
>>> throw new SearchException("Multiple @Factory
>>> methods defined.
>>> Only one factory method required.");
>>> }
>>> return mapping;
>>> }
>>>
>>> I was going to create a patch but I've got stuff such as dynamic
>>> boost and classbridge mapping which would've been included in patch
>>> and caused mayhem!
>>>
>>>
>>> It's an initial idea...probably has holes i'm sure. I didn't know
>>> whether to send it to the entire group.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Amin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> Sounds good.
>>> If you go the interface route then fine
>>> If you go the annotation route, use the existing @Factory annotation
>>> we have. You can also check the code to see how it's implemented for
>>> filter.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 déc. 09, at 19:29, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Amin,
>>> no problem go ahead do some experiments and keep the list informed; to
>>> get that right we will need some different points of view and
>>> situations, my case was very situational and would have needed some
>>> work to integrate :-)
>>>
>>> Sanne
>>>
>>> 2009/12/2 Amin Mohammed-Coleman <ami...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi Sanne
>>> Apologies again for bothering you but I just found this issue on
>>> JIRA. I'm
>>> not sure whether to send an email to the mailing list or add a
>>> comment on
>>> JIRA but do you have any objections (unless you have started work on
>>> it) of
>>> me having a look at this? I've just finished 2 more mapping classes
>>> which
>>> Emmanuel is having a look and i'm finishing teh documentation for
>>> them.
>>> I've finished 2 job interviews so I'm free to take a look at
>>> things. I
>>> wanted to run this past you first before I made a move or started any
>>> coding.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Amin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
