Hi, I believe that it's the field declaration that matters. You might be able to get away with an @Type annotation, but that's pretty much the same anyways.
Why does it matter what the field is declared as, btw? If you're using field access and want to expose the field as a Collection, you could always just define a getter that returns a Collection instead of a Set. -Patrick On 9/4/07, Gene Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > In OpenJPA's user manual, it recommends Set instead of Collection due to > performance and scalability. > > I am just curious if I define the field in Collection type and initialize it > with a Set instance. Any thing difference from keep it blank. > > For example: > > Collection<Entity> entities = new HashSet(); > > v.s. > > Set<Entity> entities; > > v.s. > > Collection<Entity> entities;(it might be the worst case) > > > Any idea and suggestion. > > Thanks > > Gene. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Explore the seven wonders of the world > http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
