users@jpa-spec.java.net

[jpa-spec users] [jsr338-experts] Re: proposal : _at_Entity on interfaces

From: Pinaki Poddar <ppoddar_at_us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:13:21 +0530

> I fear we get into a philosophical discussion here.
That fear is misplaced. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

Using interfaces as model for persistent data and their relation for
mapping them to relational database is a poor idea. Most likely rooted in
confusion about
distinct role of interfaces and stateful objects. That's all.

Ducktaping may accommodate such ideas -- but it will not improve the
quality of JPA specification.


Regards --

Pinaki Poddar
Chair, Apache OpenJPA Project http://openjpa.apache.org/
JPA Expert Group Member
Application & Integration Middleware








From: Steve Ebersole <steve.ebersole_at_redhat.com>
To: jsr338-experts_at_jpa-spec.java.net
Cc: Oliver Gierke <ogierke_at_vmware.com>
Date: 03/14/2012 02:29 AM
Subject: [jsr338-experts] Re: proposal : @Entity on interfaces



+1000

On Mon 12 Mar 2012 11:57:52 AM CDT, Oliver Gierke wrote:
> I fear we get into a philosophical discussion here. Objects have state
*and* behavior, which is what especially proponents of Domain Driven Design
emphasize. Why should JPA get in the way of using objects this way? I
always considered JPA an API to allow mapping objects onto a relational
store, not creating Java representations of data tables.
>
> Cheers,
> Ollie
>
> Am 12.03.2012 um 17:44 schrieb Pinaki Poddar:
>
>>>> Let me first say that I don't like the model of interfaces on
entities.
>> ++1
>>
>> The notion of interface in Java and type that has persistent state just
do
>> not mix.
>> The "contract:" of interface is not a state-oriented contract.
>> Trying to mix them will not be a step in a right direction.
>>
>>
>> Regards --
>>
>> Pinaki Poddar
>> Chair, Apache OpenJPA Project http://openjpa.apache.org/
>> JPA Expert Group Member
>> Application& Integration Middleware
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: michael keith<michael.keith_at_oracle.com>
>> To: jsr338-experts_at_jpa-spec.java.net
>> Cc: Matthew Adams<matthew_at_matthewadams.me>, Bernd Müller
>> <bernd.mueller_at_ostfalia.de>
>> Date: 03/12/2012 04:39 AM
>> Subject: [jsr338-experts] Re: proposal : @Entity on interfaces
>>
>>
>>
>> I would really prefer we not go down this path...
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> On 12/03/2012 1:31 AM, Matthew Adams wrote:
>>> If we choose to take this on, we could let users express simply
>>> through simple java "implements" statements which persistent
>>> interfaces a given class implements, and we could allow persistent
>>> fields of persistent interface types and persistent collections of
>>> interfaces types, as well as queries through them.
>>>
>>> @Entity
>>> // or @MappedSuperclass?
>>> // or new @EntityInterface?
>>> public interface Employee {
>>>
>>> // default mapping info allowed here?
>>> String getEmployeeNumber();
>>> }
>>> =====
>>> @Entity
>>> public class Person
>>> implements Employee { /* no addl metadata needed -- implements is
>>> sufficient */
>>>
>>> private String employeeNumber;
>>>
>>> @Column(name="emp_num")
>>> public String getEmployeeNumber() { return employeeNumber; }
>>> public String setEmployeeNumber(@NotNull String employeeNumber) {
>>> this.employeeNumber = employeeNumber; }
>>> }
>>> ====
>>> @Entity
>>> public class Corporation {
>>>
>>> @OneToMany
>>> @AllowedClasses({Person.class, Contractor.class})
>>> private List<Employee> employees;
>>>
>>> @OneToOne
>>> @AllowedClasses(Person.class)
>>> private Employee president;
>>>
>>> /* Note:
>>> Any assignment of a class other than those whitelisted in
>>> @AllowedClasses would
>>> cause the JPA implementation to throw ClassCastException
>>> */
>>> }
>>> /*
>>> @AllowedClasses could also be an attribute of relationship annotations
>>> instead of its own annotation.
>>> */
>>> =====
>>>
>>> The hard part, IMHO, is portably mapping them. Wherever you have a
>>> reference to a persistent interface, you also need at the point the
>>> class of the implementation. Further, I would say that persistent
>>> interfaces could only be mapped using property access, as interfaces
>>> have no instance fields.
>>>
>>> One possibility is to allow the use of persistent interfaces, but just
>>> say that their mappings are not portable. It would be a nontrivial
>>> body of work to bite off the additional specification of portably
>>> mapping persistent interfaces.
>>>
>>> -matthew
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, michael keith
>>> <michael.keith_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> Let me first say that I don't like the model of interfaces on
entities.
>> It
>>>> is quite rarely requested and when it is, often the user wants
multiple
>>>> entities to be able to implement the same interface (e.g. polymorphism
>> w/o
>>>> inheritance) to do something like this:
>>>>
>>>> public interface Employee { ... }
>>>> @Entity public class BusEmployee implements Employee { ... }
>>>> @Entity public class TrainEmployee implements Employee { ... }
>>>>
>>>> and then in some entity:
>>>>
>>>> @Entity public class TranportationBureau {
>>>> ...
>>>> @ManyToOne
>>>> Employee empOfTheMonth;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The feature being proposed, if I understood it correctly, would not
>> support
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, if we think that aliasing is one of those things
that
>>>> could stop large companies from using JPA we might decide to close our
>> eyes,
>>>> hold our noses and go ahead and add some kind of support.
>>>>
>>>> While I understood and sympathized with the reasons why Steve first
>>>> suggested that the annotation be on the interface (to facilitate
>>>> interface-to-single-entity enforcement) I tend to agree with Oliver
and
>>>> Bernd that it would make more sense to just add an "alias" element to
>> the
>>>> @Entity annotation and continue to apply it to the impl class. It
would
>> be
>>>> the responsibility of the provider to disallow two entities from
>> creating an
>>>> alias to the same class.
>>>>
>>>> Example:
>>>>
>>>> @Entity(alias=Employee.class)
>>>> public class EmployeeImpl implements Employee {
>>>> // mappings ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Where does one draw the line? Would we assume that a single alias is
>> enough
>>>> and that an entity would not be allowed to specify a Set? For example,
>> that
>>>> we would not need to support something like:
>>>>
>>>> @Entity(aliases={Employee.class, Worker.class}) ... or ...
>>>> @Entity(aliasInterfaces=true)
>>>> public class EmployeeImpl implements Employee, Worker {
>>>> // mappings ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/03/2012 12:23 PM, Bernd Müller wrote:
>>>>> I think, this would make many things more complex to specify in a
>>>>> consistent way.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, interfaces are a way to describe contracts in an
>>>>> implementation independent way and therefore should be as abstract
>>>>> as possible. JPA is a mapping between VM-objects and databases and
>>>>> therefore as close as possible to the implementation level.
>>>>> Here I see some problems from a conceptual point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also see many problems in practice. How to map fields in classes,
>>>>> which are eventually named different than the annotated getter in the
>>>>> interface? How to map interface hierarchies with multiple super
>>>>> interfaces to eventually DIFFERENT class hierarchies with
>>>>> single inheritance? There are more, I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have to balance if it's worth to get such new problems which have
to
>>>>> be resolved in the spec and on the other hand the benefit is less
>>>>> typing (how much?).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09.03.2012 19:04, schrieb Steve Ebersole:
>>>>>> I'd like to propose that JPA 2.1 allow @Entity on Java interfaces
not
>>>>>> just classes. The main reason is typing in spec contracts. For
>> domain
>>>>>> models that leverage interfaces, it is usually desirable to deal
with
>>>>>> the interfaces over the implementation classes. For example, such
>>>>>> applications would generally prefer to attempt to load or get a
>>>>>> reference to an instance based on the interface name as opposed to
the
>>>>>> class name. E.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public interface Person {
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Entity
>>>>>> public class PersonImpl implements Person {
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EntityManager em = ...;
>>>>>> Person p = em.find( Person.class, theKey );
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this does not work today in a portable manner. To work in the
>> most
>>>>>> portable manner, I think the @Entity annotated interface also would
>> need
>>>>>> to name the "persistent implementation class":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Entity( impl = PersonImpl.class )
>>>>>> public interface Person {
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public class PersonImpl implements Person {
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be up to each provider whether or not to support @Entity on
>> an
>>>>>> interface that did not specify a "persistent implementation class".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another way to look at this is as basically "aliasing" the entity
type
>>>>>> metadata using the interface name instead of the implementation
class
>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>