Hi Pinaki,
Now it seems much more useful. the Graph<T> you said seems interesting to
me. I am going to see if it can help me in our project.
Thanks
Pinaki Poddar wrote:
>
> Hi,
> You can also define relations in terms of a interface (say T), tell
> OpenJPA that at runtime you will at supply a Persistence capable instance
> for the interface (see @Type annotation in the doc).
>
> Effectively you can define a class say Graph<T> with generic type T and
> persist with Person or City at runtime as the node of the real graph.
>
>
>
> is_maximum wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Craig,
>> Yes it reduces the redundant code. But I was thinking of a great idea
>> behind that which may leads me to a revolution in my application :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi is_,
>>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:45 AM, is_maximum wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone explain what is the ManagedInterface good for? What
>>>> benefit would
>>>> achieve if we define all of our entities as interfaces?
>>>
>>> If your entities are pure data (no behavior) then defining them as
>>> interfaces reduces mindless code generation for the implementation of
>>> get and set methods. All you do is declare the methods and OpenJPA
>>> does the rest.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://n2.nabble.com/What-is-ManagedInterface-tp2449023p2449023.html
>>>> Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/What-is-ManagedInterface-tp2449023p2453694.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|