Ok, thanks!
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:01 AM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> We do not support an application implementing a custom
> PersistenceContext.
>
> I'm not against adding a default, but most likely that default would be a
> "throw an exception" type which I am not sure is useful
>
> On Mon, Sep
Ok, thanks.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:09 AM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Seems like we dropped the need for the subclass checking here but did not
> remove passing that Function. Technically it could be removed and the
> EntityMetamodel
> constructor reverted
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:14 PM Gail
Seems like we dropped the need for the subclass checking here but did not
remove passing that Function. Technically it could be removed and the
EntityMetamodel
constructor reverted
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:14 PM Gail Badner wrote:
> HHH-11147 changed a EntityMetamodel constructor argument from
Do you have an example where this is actually a problem?
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 8:01 PM Gail Badner wrote:
> HHH-11147 changed Property#isLazy as shown in [1].
>
> The part that concerns me is:
>
> + // For a many-to-one, this is always false. Whether the
> + // association is EAGER, PROXY or
We do not support an application implementing a custom PersistenceContext.
I'm not against adding a default, but most likely that default would be a
"throw an exception" type which I am not sure is useful
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:19 PM Gail Badner wrote:
> HHH-11147 added
