Just a thought:
We can still allow vendor extensions, right? So if a property (e.g.
"toplink.allow-mixed-access-type") is set to true in a particular PU,
we allow it. By default, don't.
thanks,
-marina
Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
> Thanks for reviewing. Are there any other comments?
>
> I totally agree with you that an embeddable should be allowed to have
> its own access-type and that would have given more options to the user,
> but unfortunately, the expert group ignored this point when it was
> raised. More over, the spec is *very very* confusing on this subject. In
> 2.1.5, it says:
> /The access type for an embedded object *is* determined by the access
> type of the entity in which it is embedded./
> (Note, it says *is determined by* as opposed to *can be determined*.).
> Yet, *orm_1_0.xsd* allows an access-type to be specified for an
> embeddable, there by *contradicting* the previous rule. Moreover, only
> non-portable applications can have different access-type for an
> embeddable as the spec says the following in section #10.1.5.2:
> /Portable applications must not specify the access attribute if mapping
> annotations have been applied
> to the fields or properties of the embeddable class or the entity with
> which it is associated and the value
> differs from the access type defined by means of annotations.
> Portable applications must not use more than one access type within an
> entity hierarchy.
> /
> So, until it is officially clarified in the spec, I think, we *must not*
> use annotations in embeddable class to determine access-type. I am also
> not in favor of allowing access-type of an embeddable to be overridden
> in orm.xml unless we support the same extension for MappedSuperclass.
> Are you proposing to support this for MappedSuperclass as well? Looking
> at the code, I think, supporting this for MappedSuperclass will be
> tougher than that for Embeddable.
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
> Gordon Yorke wrote:
>
>>Hello Sahoo,
>> I have reviewed your code and have a suggestion. The Access Type of the Embeddable should still be determined based on annotations or XML (XML can define access type directly). This allows users to specify the access type of the Embeddable. If the access type is not available from the Embeddable then use the access type of the parent. The specification states that the access type can be 'determined' from that of the parent but is not mandated to be that of the parent( Mike, is that not the intention of the specification?) This would give users much more flexibility for sharing Embeddables.
>> Also based on how TopLink treats Embeddable mappings we could, in the future, support a different access type for each target of an Embeddable mapping if the AccesType of the Embeddable was not supplied by the user.
>>--Gordon
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM [mailto:Sanjeeb.Sahoo_at_Sun.COM]On Behalf Of
>>Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo
>>Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:00 AM
>>To: Tom Ware
>>Cc: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>Subject: code review for issue #831
>>
>>
>>Hi Tom,
>>
>>Attached here with the suggested fix for
>>https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=831 .
>>The jar file contains modified sources in new folder, original sources
>>in orig folder and differences in diffs folder.
>>Please review them. I have update issue tracker with the details.
>>
>>Tests run:
>>entity-persistence-tests(all of them passed)
>>JPA TCK v1.0: 3 tests failed but they fail on a clean workspace as well
>>(Yes, I have run those 3 tests in a clean workspace and they failed).
>>So, my changes are not causing those failures.
>>
>>Appreciate a quick reply.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Sahoo
>>
>>
>>
>