openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Miroslav Nachev (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Updated: (OPENJPA-331) Allow BigInteger and other Basic types as Primary Keys
Date Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:40:43 GMT


Miroslav Nachev updated OPENJPA-331:

    Attachment: license-fix-OpenJPA-331-v110.patch

Is that OK?
I am so sorry but I am not so friendly with License matter. If this is not OK, please fix
it or exact tell me what to do.

> Allow BigInteger and other Basic types as Primary Keys
> ------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: OPENJPA-331
>                 URL:
>             Project: OpenJPA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: kernel
>    Affects Versions: 0.9.7, 1.0.0
>            Reporter: Kevin Sutter
>            Assignee: Kevin Sutter
>             Fix For: 1.0.2, 1.1.0
>         Attachments: fix-OpenJPA-331.patch, license-fix-OpenJPA-331-v110.patch
> Section 2.1.4 of the JPA spec outlines the requirements for a primary key (@Id):
> 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
> 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)
> 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
> used as a primary key field or property, the temporal type should be specified as DATE.
> Right now, we are treating the "should be" statement above as "must be" and only allowing
the specified types as primary keys.  But, the sentence in the middle of this paragraph ("Entities
whose primary keys use types other than these will not be portable.") indicates that other
types can also be allowed, but may not be portable.
> It seems that Glassfish allows these additional Basic types as primary keys.  We should
probably allow the same thing to keep up with the Jones'.
> This was discussed on dev mailing list.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message