persistence@glassfish.java.net

Re: why Embeddable and MappedSuperclass are required in persistence.xml file?

From: Marina Vatkina <Marina.Vatkina_at_Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:07:55 -0700

As long as users are aware that they are using a non-portable feature,
I'm fine. Otherwise it'll be a disservice to them (IMHO).

thanks,
-marina

Tom Ware wrote:
> My understanding of the specification is that in JavaSE, all the managed
> classes including Embeddable & MappedSuperclass should be listed to
> ensure portability.
>
> That does not prevent us from implementing a feature that allows users
> to exclude them.
>
> -Tom
>
> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>
>> Isn't it required by the spec?
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>> Tom Ware wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think an enhancement request to remove this requirement would be a
>>> good thing to add to the issue tracker.
>>>
>>> -Tom
>>>
>>> Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I understand why a user has to specify *Entity* class in
>>>> persistence.xml on Java SE environment. But why does a user have to
>>>> specify *Embeddable* & *MappedSuperclass* list?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sahoo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>