I saw the same thing being done by Jesse in his commit yesterday. I personally feel that makes JPA layer more difficult and more error-prone also. Any add/removal of element in Model will need change all the JPA classes where model is used. I may not have understood your idea completely. I would like to see the code before making further comments.
Thanks Raminder On Apr 19, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: > I was thinking a bit about the model objects as interfaces vs POJO vs > JPAPOJO and thought of a slightly different approach. What if we keep the > model objects as POJOs and allow the persistence layer to create their own > model objects that extend the Rave model and decorate them according to > their own persistence strategy? Since we (I think) all plan on treating > the Rave model objects as POJOs, regardless of their underlying nature, > this approach may serve everyone's needs. > > Unless there are objections, I am going to replace Jesse's mock > persistence layer with a JPA layer that hits an in-memory database and > uses the strategy outlined above. > > -Matt >
