users@jpa-spec.java.net

[jpa-spec users] [jsr338-experts] Re: updated spec draft (converters)

From: Steve Ebersole <steve.ebersole_at_redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:43:39 -0500

Still working from Draft 6 which does not call out converters specially
in 8.2.1.6. Sorry if that has been addressed in a later spec draft.
Guess I'll find out next week when I move past draft 6 implementation :D

On 07/05/2012 12:41 PM, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On 7/5/2012 8:25 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>> I did not see this covered specifically in the spec draft nor this
>> discussion. I apologize if I missed it.
>>
>> Say we encounter @Convert(converter=MyConverter.class)
>>
>> Does MyConverter *need to be known already*? Obviously if scanning is
>> enabled we will know about it (since by spec it
>> needs to be annotated with @Converter...). But what I mean is if
>> scanning is disabled, does MyConverter have to be
>> listed in XML for an @Convert reference to it to work?
>>
>
> Please see section 8.2.1.6. It should be treated as the other managed
> classes.
>
> -Linda
>
>
>> On 03/12/2012 12:19 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7 mars 2012, at 23:33, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've uploaded a draft of the spec with the attribute converter
>>>> additions to the document
>>>> downloads area, http://java.net/projects/jpa-spec/downloads.
>>>>
>>>> The converter changes can be found in sections 3.7, 10.5, and
>>>> 11.1.10-11.
>>>>
>>>> The following open issues are pending:
>>>>
>>>> * Conversion of @Id and @Version.
>>>>
>>>> * Explicit listing of converters in persistence.xml file. I'm not
>>>> sure I understand what
>>>> was being proposed here.
>>>
>>> When the archive is not scanned (it's an option in persistence.xml),
>>> the provider has no way of finding the list of
>>> converters unless the user explicitly list them in persistence.xml
>>> like it does list classes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> * What to do about the "specialization" issue that was raised. Would
>>>> someone care to provide
>>>> some use cases and/or flesh out that part of the proposal further?
>>>>
>>>> * Whether these APIs belong in the javax.persistence package or
>>>> whether we should introduce
>>>> a new package (e.g., javax.persistence.mapping).
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anything or if there are any other
>>>> corrections, additions, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Linda
>>>
>>