openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Sutter" <>
Subject BigInteger as @Id
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:56:28 GMT
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.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?


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message