> Your goal is for Individual and Org to both extend Party, but you're
> struggling with the spec not addressing entity beans extending entity
> beans. What you're implying is that you want Party, the base class, to be
> an entity bean. If that is in fact one of your requirements, then don't
> read on.
OK, let me ask this question. I was under the impression that it *would* be a
requirement for Party to be an entity bean solely because I might have functions that
should work on a Party, in much the same ways that they might be asked to work on an
Employee, or a Company (both of which definitely should be entity beans, if I read
correctly). Is there a litmus test, or something even approaching a litmus test, I
can use here?
> Another consideration is to model Party as a plain class (a helper class),
> and still extend it same as before by your entity bean classes. I'm almost
> certain TOPLink could map such a construct, since it handles entities
> extending entities. By using a helper class as the base class, you remain
> 100% within the spec.
Fine; what about the case where VendorCompany logically extends Company logically
extends Organization logically extends Party? Which of these classes should be entity
beans and which shouldn't?
Cheers,
Laird
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
