On 24 Jun 2014, at 15:07, Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> wrote:
> 2014-06-24 14:55 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org>: > > On 24 Jun 2014, at 11:50, Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >> Yes, today we don't. >> >> But is there any reason for not using the value column name? > > Not more that the ones I outlined in this thread. > >> In fact that's what my pending PR >> https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-ogm/pull/337 does for MongoDB. Right >> now it even allows to work with different value column names for the same >> table (either in the same or in different documents/records) but I plan to >> add a check disallowing this for the sake of portability to stores with a >> fixed schema. > > I don’t follow that one. A fixed schema would be fine here, just with two > columns instead of one, no? > > Yes, this could work, though I'm not sure when one would actually want to > make use of such an approach. I guess we can leave it out for now and wait > until we actually have store with a fixed schema. > > Btw. ORM itself stumbles upon such configuration (the table is generated with > one of the two columns, causing an error when trying to select from the other > one). Yes, I suspected so. The generation gets lost in that. But one can write its own DDL script. _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
