You would definitely need the first to properly handle introspected type resolution.
For the second, I think they would normally just put "binary" as the type, but I would think an additional "byte[]" type mapping could not hurt. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max Rydahl Andersen Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:46 AM To: Hibernate development Subject: [Hibernate] TypeFactory old-time bug ? Hi guys, Can it be true that TypeFactory should contain: basics.put( byte[].class.getName(), Hibernate.BINARY); and not basics.put( "byte[]", Hibernate.BINARY); The first one put in "B<somespecialchar>[]". This is both in H2 and H3 (for ages). Is there any usecase for the current put ? (I can't think of any, but since this have been there since beginning of time....) -- Max Rydahl Andersen callto://max.rydahl.andersen Hibernate [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hibernate.org JBoss Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jboss.com ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
