I am neither proposing nor opposing the RFE. I asked the question to
understand the intention of the spec. Hopefully Linda is reading this
email ;-) I don't know why developers have been made to suffer.
BTW, looking at the code, I see that TopLink Essentials doesn't require
MappedSuperclass list to be specified in persistence.xml. It finds them
out from orm.xml and/or while processing entity classes.
Thanks,
Sahoo
Marina Vatkina wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>