openjpa-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Gardner <chris.r.gard...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JPA 3.0
Date Tue, 11 May 2010 15:27:18 GMT
Thanks.  I'm in the former camp, i.e., a legacy database.  I'm aware of the
xml alternative.  Though I'm no DotNet developer, I read about an Fluent
NHibernate, which allows you to create a object to store mapping in code.

http://wiki.fluentnhibernate.org/Getting_started

<http://wiki.fluentnhibernate.org/Getting_started>Maybe such an API isn't
appropriate for a spec, but it would be an interesting alternative to both
annotations and xml for JPA.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Christopher,
> You're right, annotations can be verbose.  But, they don't have to be.  It
> all depends on whether your application can live with the default
> processing
> defined by the spec.  We tried to pick the most common default values for
> the various annotation elements.  If your application can live with the
> default processing, then all that is really necessary is the @Entity and
> @Id
> annotations.  But, most legacy applications and schemas can not live with
> the default settings, thus the annotations can become verbose.  Flexibility
> can be a killer...  But, then we'd be crucified if we didn't allow for the
> flexibility...  :-)
>
> The annotations can also be overridden via orm.xml declarations.  This
> would
> keep your base code more readable, while putting the detailed gorp into the
> xml file(s).  Maybe this would be more suitable for your environment.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "fluent API".  Any specific examples to help with
> this discussion?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Christopher Gardner <
> chris.r.gardner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vis-a-vis all JPA specs, streamlining annotations would be nice.  The
> > annotations can be verbose.  Maybe a fluent API would be in order.
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > > Sorry to hear that you are frustrated with JPA 2.0.  Can you elaborate?
> > >  The
> > > JPA Expert Group is currently soliciting feedback for the next revision
> > of
> > > the JPA spec (2.x or 3.0).  Here's the e-mail address for this
> > > correspondence [1].  But, if there are distinct improvements that are
> you
> > > looking for, maybe they could be entertained by the OpenJPA community
> > > first.  Bugs and/or Features can be entered into our JIRA system [2]
> for
> > > future consideration.  Of course, community involvement can help speed
> up
> > > this process.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the input,
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > > [1]  jsr-317-feedback@sun.com
> > > [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:12 AM, C N Davies <cnd@cndavies.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm so frustrated by JPA 2.0 but can't seem to find an JSR for JPA 3
> or
> > > > anything. Can anyone point me it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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