Hi,
You would definitely need the first to properly handle introspected type resolution.
Ok - i just weren't sure it was used since i couldn't make typename contain the introspected class name.
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.
well - i thought the same and is running with it now. will commit it as such in H3.
/max
-----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
