Hi guys,
Just saw http://www.hibernate.org/250.html and I tried to update it
to reflect the Interceptor.isUnsaved()/isTransient() rename, but
couldn't since i did not have permission to do so.
btw. by renaming to isTransient() and still having unsaved-value in the
DTD,
isn't that kinda counter-in
The doc says
table: hibernate_unique_key et column: next_hi
The code says
table: next_hi et column: next_hi
Any objection if I change the *code* value for H3?
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo!
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[]".
This is both in H2 and H3 (for ages).
Is there any usecase for the current put ?
(I can't think of any, but si
Its not a bug. It is very correct.
Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
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[]".
This is both in H2 and H3 (for ages).
Is there a
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
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 additiona
