|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):
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, SpeakerPlease note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.
From: jakarta.ee-community <jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Oliver Drotbohm <odrotbohm@xxxxxxxxxx>Hi,
Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 12:11 PM
To: Jakarta EE community discussions
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] Java Records and Jakarta EE
> 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 .
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.
Back to the top