[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-751?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15144601#comment-15144601
]
Tilmann Zäschke commented on JDO-751:
-------------------------------------
I completely agree, that defeats the purpose of {{Optional}} :-). My argument
is simply that unfortunately the way that Java implements it, you _can_ have a
{{null}} reference to an {{Optional}}. Of course JDOQL could implement
different semantics than Java by ignoring the case that a reference to an
{{Optional}} can be {{null}}, but it it would still be exactly that: different
semantics.
We can of course use different semantic in JDOQL and Java. But considering how
unlikely it is that a Field is of type {{Optional}} (after all it seems to be
discouraged by the Java people), I'm not sure that the potential benefits of a
shortcut are worth the potential future risk of deviating from Java.
Yes, comparing an {{Optional}} to {{null}} seems silly, but that doesn't mean
that nobody is going to do it or even find a clever use for it.
> Support for Java8 Optional
> --------------------------
>
> Key: JDO-751
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-751
> Project: JDO
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: specification, tck
> Reporter: Andy Jefferson
>
> java.util.Optional provides a feature that is available in other languages.
> Since JDO 3.2 will be for Java8+ then it makes sense to add support for this
> as a "supported persistable type"
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
