Mailing-List: contact users-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <67913BF2-D4AF-4EBD-83FD-1CD4411E069F@logemann.org>
From: Marc Logemann <li@logemann.org>
To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: same @Id on mapped superclass
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:32:35 +0100

Hi,

following domain model:

@MappedSuperclass
public class BasicMetaData  {

     @Id
     @Column(name = "oid")
     private long oid;
...
}

@Entity
@VersionColumn(name = "jdoversion")
@Table(name = "foo1")
public class MetaData1 extends BasicMetaData {
}

@Entity
@VersionColumn(name = "jdoversion")
@Table(name = "foo2")
public class MetaData2 extends BasicMetaData {
}


Now  i have a oid value of "1" in the DB for MetaData1. When i try to  
use also "1" as oid for MetaData2 and try to persist, i am getting an  
exception because Entity MetaData1 is somehow in the same "ID space".  
So is it correct that one cant define an ID field in a mapped  
Superclass when the IDs have their own "counter".

In this example, OpenJPA even thinks that MetaData2 is a detached  
instance of type MetaData1 because it looks in its cache and sees an  
OID with value 1 but for  complete different entity.

To make it short? I must define the OID field on the subclasses right?


Marc