Yes, only the ones with gettter AND setter are auto mapped.
The ones with only a getter is not mapped.
Since I can not use provider extensions because I have no control over
what the customer may use, it seems that, unfortunately, I will have to
go with explicit transient definition.
I would interpret "xml-mapping-metadata-complete" as an indication to
the provider that this is it. Whatever is there in xml is what you are
supposed to deal with. Look no further.
Anyhow, if this is not the right interpretation then I feel the spec
should rather handle this in the next version, like folding the
extensions into the spec.
Thanks,
Prashant
Guy Pelletier wrote:
> Prashant,
>
> Does the getter have an equivalent setter? If so, this is not a bug.
> This is the defaulting behavior I outlined earlier.
>
> If there is no setter than, this is a bug.
>
> Cheers,
> Guy
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marina Vatkina"
> <Marina.Vatkina_at_Sun.COM>
> To: <persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:57 PM
> Subject: Re: transient properties
>
>
>> Prashant,
>>
>> Do you explicitly list all defined properties in the orm.xml or just
>> specify the access type? If it's the former, and an extra getter is
>> treated as a property, it looks like a bug. Otherwise listing all the
>> persistent properties can be a solution for you.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -marina
>>
>> Prashant Dighe wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There is an orm.xml mapping with xml-mapping-metadata-complete and
>>> access specified as "PROPERTY".
>>> The persistence class mapping is defined and working.
>>>
>>> Now when some getter is added to the persistent entity class, it
>>> gets picked up and mapped by default to a column which does not
>>> exist. This can be fixed using transient element in the entity
>>> definition or by adding @Transient annotation to the getter.
>>>
>>> The question is, is there a way to prevent this w/o using transient?
>>>
>>> Since the meta data is complete, and is really completely defined in
>>> the entity element, why is anything not defined in the attributes
>>> element of the mapping being picked up?
>>>
>>> In other words, when the mapping is explicitly and completely
>>> defined in the orm.xml, why is it trying to map other unmapped
>>> properties over zealously and can this be avoided such that anything
>>> not defined in the mapping should be treated as transient
>>> automatically.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Prashant
>>
>>
>