I see. However, we state in the spec when things are required
to be specified.
We don't require that @Inheritance be specified, and otherwise
always treat normal Java language inheritance as being operative,
so I think this interpretation is counterintuitive, although I
can see why confusion might arise.
Linda
Mike Keith wrote:
> Actually, I can see exactly why there is confusion. I have always
> assumed that the @Inheritance annotation is present and in the spec we
> do not use the wording that we use in the other sections that assume
> a default when the annotation is absent.
>
> For example, in every section where the annotation may be defaulted
> if it is absent we say:
>
> "If no <InsertAnnotationHere> annotation is specified, ..."
> "If the <InsertAnnotationHere> annotation is not specified..."
> "If the <InsertAnnotationHere> annotation is missing..."
>
> We say this for:
>
> @Table - "If no Table annotation is specified..."
> @SecondaryTable - "If no SecondaryTable annotation is specified..."
> @Column - "If no Column annotation is specified..."
> @JoinColumn - "If no JoinColumn annotation is specified..."
> @JoinTable - "If the JoinTable annotation is missing..."
>
> And for the two inheritance annotations that *are* optional:
>
> @DiscriminatorColumn - "If the DiscriminatorColumn annotation is missing..."
> @DiscriminatorValue - "If the DiscriminatorValue annotation is not specified..."
>
> But in the Inheritance section, we define the enum, and then talk about
> the *type* (the thing in the annotation element) being specified, not the
> annotation:
>
> "public enum InheritanceType
> { SINGLE_TABLE, JOINED, TABLE_PER_CLASS };
>
> Support for the TABLE_PER_CLASS mapping strategy is optional in this release.
>
> If no inheritance type is specified..."
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Linda DeMichiel [mailto:Linda.Demichiel_at_Sun.COM]
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:20 PM
>>To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>Cc: Mike Keith
>>Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Issue 486] Problem with abstract @Entity
>>and @Id in
>>b41]
>>
>>
>>I don't see how this confusion could arise from the spec.
>>
>>Inheritance applies as a result of the Java language "extends"
>>clause. You don't have to specify @Inheritance for it to
>>apply.
>>
>>(The @Inheritance annotation is not required to be specified
>>for inheritance. See section 9.1.29, which states that if no
>>annotation
>>is present, the single table per class hierarchy inheritance
>>strategy applies.)
>>
>>Linda
>>
>>
>>
>>Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Mike,
>>>
>>>Would you mind having a look at this issue? The latest
>>
>>update suggest
>>
>>>that user must specify @Inheritance in a class to indicate that that
>>>class is the root of the inheritance hierarchy. Why is this
>>
>>the case?
>>
>>>Why can't root be identified by the persistence provider runtime by
>>>walking up the tree?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Sahoo
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>----------
>>
>>>Subject:
>>>[Issue 486] Problem with abstract @Entity and @Id in b41
>>>From:
>>>pkrogh_at_dev.java.net
>>>Date:
>>>Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:48:07 +0000
>>>To:
>>>issues_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>
>>>To:
>>>issues_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>
>>>
>>>https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=486
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>User pkrogh changed the following:
>>>
>>> What |Old value |New value
>>>
>>
>>==============================================================
>>==================
>>
>>> Issue type|DEFECT |ENHANCEMENT
>>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>------------------
>>
>>> Priority|P3 |P4
>>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>------------------
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------- Additional comments from pkrogh_at_dev.java.net Wed
>>
>>Mar 29 15:48:07 +0000 2006 -------
>>
>>>This bug seems to be about the provider determining that
>>
>>inheritance is implied
>>
>>>without specifying the @Inheritance annotation. This is
>>
>>not defined in the
>>
>>>spec, and I believe that it was not the intention of the spec. The
>>>@Inheritance tag defines that Inheritance is needed.
>>>
>>>It seems like a nice usability feature, but it would
>>
>>potentially require the
>>
>>>provider to walk the whole hierarchy instead of just
>>
>>looking for @Inheritance.
>>
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>
>>
>