On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:58 AM andrea boriero <and...@hibernate.org> wrote:
> On 6 July 2016 at 21:01, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> One option is that they need to match exactly (maybe with some simple
>> handling of quoted versus case-insensitive, similar to Identifier#equals
>> leveraging Identifier#getCanonicalName), e.g.:
>>
>> @Entity
>> @Table( name="`USER`" )
>> @org.hibernate.annotations.Table( appliesTo="`USER`", ... )
>> class User {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> I guess the first question here is whether we want to support referring to
>> implicit table names in other annotations at all. JPA for the most part
>> discourages this; in order for a table name to be referenced in other
>> annotations it should be named explicitly.
>>
>> In my opinion make sense not supporting implicit naming strategy.
>
I was not so much asking about leveraging the ImplicitNamingStrategy. More
I was asking conceptually whether we want to allow this at all.
What about comparing the names after having previously removed, if
> presents, the quoting chars?
>
Personally, I think using straight String comparisons is the main problem.
If you look at the code for Identifier#equals that is really exactly what
we need already.
We cannot just drop the quotes for an accurate comparison. "`MY_TABLE`"
and "`my_table`" are different tables to each sane and SQL spec compliant
database. But conversely "MY_TABLE" and "my_table" are the same table.
Overall though I think it is reasonable to just expect to match an explicit
name. Especially if we allow org.hibernate.annotations.Table#appliesTo to
be empty like javax.persistence.Column#table, etc as a means to refer to
the root table.
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
