Hmm not sure. The point is why needing to make explicit something already
explicit? If a converter is provided then it is @Persistent no? Any case I
miss?
 Le 21 mai 2015 16:27, "Rick Curtis" <curti...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> I think the more appropriate solution (and in line with the 2.1 spec) would
> be to require these types to be listed in the <class> section of the
> persistence-unit definition. I *think* the 2.1 spec requires this for
> converters. Then perhaps we could remove the requirement of having the
> @Persistent annotation?
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Le 21 mai 2015 04:02, "Rick Curtis" <curti...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > not sure why it is not activated by default then, any idea?
> > >
> > > I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, but I would guess if
> someone
> > > spent the time to state it needs to be @Persistent in the doc.... there
> > is
> > > most likely a decent reason. Is this causing some sort of a problem for
> > you?
> > >
> >
> > Was testing some pre-attribute converter solution and was surprise than
> it
> > goes in db by default but serialized even being a string. This breaks sql
> > updates then.
> >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Right @Persistent solves it, not sure why it is not activated by
> > default
> > > > then, any idea?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
> > > > <http://www.tomitribe.com>
> > > >
> > > > 2015-05-21 0:05 GMT+02:00 Rick Curtis <curti...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > > seems today only serialization can be used using
> > > > @Externalizer/@Factory.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think that's the case[1][2]. For some reason I couldn't
> > cleanly
> > > > > apply your patch to trunk, but can you try adding a @Persistent
> > > > annotation
> > > > > to your CustomDate ? Also, take a look at
> > > > > org.apache.openjpa.persistence.fields.TestEnumSets
> > > > > to see if it is close to the scenario you're looking at trying to
> > fix?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] If your externalized field is not a standard persistent type,
> you
> > > > must
> > > > > explicitly mark it persistent. In OpenJPA, you can force a
> persistent
> > > > field
> > > > > by annotating it with org.apache.openjpa.persistence.Persistent
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openjpa/trunk/docbook/manual.html#ref_guide_meta_jpa_persistent
> > > > > >
> > > > >  annotation.
> > > > >
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openjpa/trunk/docbook/manual.html#ref_guide_pc_extern
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > seems today only serialization can be used using
> > > > @Externalizer/@Factory.
> > > > > > However when both rely on the same type and the type is easy
> enough
> > > > (let
> > > > > > take the so common String example) I think we can map it 1-1 in
> the
> > > > > > database. Advantage is you can use any sql too to update the
> > values.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Opened a task and proposed a patch for it
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2589
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wdyt?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
> > > > > > <http://www.tomitribe.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Rick Curtis*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Rick Curtis*
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Rick Curtis*
>

Reply via email to