[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-community] Java Records and Jakarta EE
|
At any rate, I have filed this (mostly as a way to not forget
about the discussion):
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jpa-api/issues/338.
On 12/4/21 12:24 PM, Reza Rahman wrote:
While I think of it as a separate issue, I
definitely think the default constructor requirement
should be revisited. It does make domain models more
awkward sometimes. I do however look at it as a low
priority issue.
Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an
individual community member and do not reflect the views
of my employer.
Hi,
> Am 04.12.2021 um 17:46 schrieb Reza Rahman
<reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Here is some preliminary analysis and discussion for
Persistence:
https://github.com/kalgon/jpa-records/issues/1.
The gist is that I don’t think Persistence needs to do
anything right now, but there may be value in looking into a
standard utility that can convert to and from Records.
There are a couple of misconceptions in the README of the
project, which I've commented on here [0].
JPA requiring default constructors pretty much everywhere *is*
a severe limitation to the entity design for dozens of
reasons. Records make that pretty obvious. So while of course
you can argue Persistence doesn't "need " to do anything
regarding this aspect, but I think it should. Because
improving on this would broadly benefit Persistence, not only
in persisting records.
Cheers,
Ollie
[0]
https://github.com/kalgon/jpa-records/issues/3