openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: BigInteger as @Id
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:29:05 GMT
I think BigInteger should be supported by OpenJPA as a pk for an  
Entity. If your requirements go beyond the domain of Long, what do  
you do then?

I'd like to see it standardized as a portable requirement for the  
next JPA specification.


On Aug 23, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:

> Hi,
> Shouldn't BigInteger fields be allowed to be primary keys?   
> According to
> section 2.1.4, the requirements on the @Id field are not real  
> specific.  It
> says "should be"...
> Section 2.1.4:  A simple (i.e., non-composite) primary key must  
> correspond
> to a single persistent field or property of
> the entity class. The Id annotation is used to denote a simple  
> primary key.
> See section 9.1.8.
> Also from Section 2.1.4:  The primary key (or field or property of a
> composite primary key) should be one of the following types:
> any Java primitive type; any primitive wrapper type; java.lang.String;
> java.util.Date;
> java.sql.Date. In general, however, approximate numeric types (e.g.,
> floating point types) should
> never be used in primary keys. Entities whose primary keys use  
> types other
> than these will not be portable.
> If generated primary keys are used, only integral types will be  
> portable. If
> java.util.Date is
> used as a primary key field or property, the temporal type should be
> specified as DATE.
> When I just attempted it, I got the following error:
> <openjpa-1.0.0-SNAPSHOT-r420667:568164 fatal user error>
> org.apache.openjpa.util.MetaDataException: Type "class
> org.apache.openjpa.persistence.simple.AllFieldTypes" declares field
> "bigIntegerField" as a primary key, but keys of type  
> "java.math.BigInteger"
> are not supported.
> Any reason for this limitation?  Looking at the ClassMetaData  
> class, it
> looks like we are reading "should be" as "must be".  Should we  
> allow any of
> the @Basic types?  Thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Kevin

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
408 276-5638
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message