On Aug 27, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
The JDO expert group has adopted a user-level API for configuring FetchGroups at runtime. There is a factory for FetchGroup in the PersistenceManager and PersistenceManagerFactory, corresponding to EntityManager and EntityManagerFactory.I'd like to implement this concept for OpenJPA, and have a few questions before I start.Currently there is an Annotation org.apache.openjpa.persistence.FetchGroup that allows an annotation to be defined for a class or field. There are also FetchPlan.java and FetchPlanImpl.java in that same package. The FetchPlan is the interface (not standard) and the FetchPlanImpl is the implementation for the FetchPlan interface.So if we want to have an interface representing the FetchGroup how do we avoid the name conflict between the annotation name and the interface name for FetchGroup?
This name conflict is making me crazy. Why did we put annotations into the same package as interfaces and implementations?
FetchPlan is an interface but it might also be an annotation in future, along with FetchPlans. These annotations would allow you to define named fetch plans in annotations that could be used for static definition of fetch plans for queries, etc. without needing an API. Sort of the inverse of what we found useful in FetchGroup.
What if we moved all the annotations currently in org.apache.openjpa.persistence to org.apache.openjpa.annotations, deprecate the current annotation definitions in org.apache.openjpa.persistence?
Craig
Craig Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
