Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipselink-users] Specification/RI question

Hi Laird,
We currently do not support this configuration. If you do place a @Table annotation on a mapped superclass it is silently ignored.
Considering it is not allowed in the schema definition I would assume the spec does not intend them to be used with mapped superclasses through annotations either.
However, feel free to enter an enhancement request if you feel this functionality is important.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 4:53 PM
Subject: [eclipselink-users] Specification/RI question

Two questions, actually.

1. Is it legal to place a @Table annotation on a @MappedSuperclass?  I see nothing in the specification that would prohibit this, but wanted to check with the people who are making the reference implementation.

2. May two @Entities share the same table, provided of course they populate it correctly?

As in:

public class AbstractFoo<V> {
  private String fieldOne;
  // and so on

public class ConcreteFoo1 extends AbstractFoo<Bar> {
  // mostly @Transient and behavior overrides

public class ConcreteFoo2 extends AbstractFoo<Baz> {
  // mostly @Transient and behavior overrides

It seems like the specification permits this, but I wanted to check.


eclipselink-users mailing list

Back to the top