Actually that isn't true.
We don't say that Lob must be specified but we have been
assuming that it must also be present if a column is a lob.
Same for Embedded. I don't think we even say anything
about requiring Embeddable (except for the EmbeddedId case),
but we do. Same for Inheritance.
Note that I am not saying that some of things could not be
defaulted, because most of them can and should be, just like
Inheritance could be defaulted. I am just saying that we didn't
specify it to be defaultable.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda DeMichiel [mailto:Linda.Demichiel_at_Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 8:51 PM
> To: Mike Keith
> Cc: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net; Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo;
> Krogh Peter
> W
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Issue 486] Problem with abstract @Entity
> and @Id in
> b41]
>
>
> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >
>