|
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.
Cheers,
Guy
----- 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:
@MappedSuperclass
@Table(name="shape")
public class AbstractFoo<V>
{
@Basic
private String
fieldOne;
// and so on
}
@Entity
public class ConcreteFoo1 extends
AbstractFoo<Bar> {
// mostly @Transient and
behavior overrides
}
@Entity
public class ConcreteFoo2 extends
AbstractFoo<Baz> {
// mostly @Transient and
behavior overrides
}
It seems like the
specification permits this, but I wanted to check.
Thanks,
Laird
_______________________________________________
eclipselink-users
mailing
list
eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
|
