[thread diverged, not sure how to reply on each point.. so clean sheet:] I agree as a user it's not simple to deal with two "massindex" approaches, even worse if they behave differently. Your straight-forward take on it is to make sure they behave the same, and I see some good value in it.. still we end up having two ways to achieve the same thing, which is *one too much*. Let's go one step further conceptually, and remove one (give me a second..).
Second point is, with the exclusive indexing and the IndexManager abstraction, it's pretty hard for the user to make "free form" changes to the index: we don't allow external tools to connect to the index and apply changes as we own the lock; the only option for the power user is to use #index, #purge, #purgeAll to make "advanced" self controlled changes to the index. This is the only option a user has to override all the automagic behaviour, and let him deal with changes directly. I think it's important that we have such an option to expose the ultimate control toe the user overriding any internal filtering logic, and these methods have always had this role. Proposal: after we clarify the fact that these methods go straight to the index without any interception (no doubt clarification is needed), we change the chapter describing the "old style indexing" from being one of the suggested methods for reindexing, to be "just an example" of the index method, and for example how it could be done to write your own MassIndexer - however some wiring would be needed, for example 1)the manual session clear and 2)apply indexing interceptors are concerns the user has to take care of. I think it's important to keep that example in the docs for those cases there is a problem with the MassIndexer, or just as a great example for those index controlling methods - but it's confusing to suggest two ways to do the same thing as we do today. +0,8 to optionally (with a boolean) enable interception on those methods. I guess it might be handy, but I'm not fully convinced on their use and it's yet-another-method, we're getting a bit complex. At least it's better than always applying the interceptor as the missing method would make it clear that this wouldn't work on #purgeAll: as Emmanuel pointed out that's not going to fly. Cheers, Sanne _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
