Dead thread. The @Type annotation is defined in
org.apache.openjpa.persistence.Type
--
Alex
On Jan 12, 2008 6:07 PM, Alexander Saint Croix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Panaki,
>
> I read your blog entry on persisting a generic graph and am very
> interested in using something similar to this for some of my entities.
>
> The pattern I'm looking to do is something like the following:
>
> @MappedSuperclass
> > public abstract class Foo implements Serializable {
> > @Id
> > private long id;
> >
> > public long getId() { return id; }
> > public void setId(long id) { this.id = id; }
> >
> > public void doStuff() {
> > // stuff. very abstract, to be sure.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @Entity
> > public class ConcreteFoo extends Foo {
> > public void doConcreteStuff() {
> > // more concrete stuff
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @Entity
> > public class OtherFoo extends Foo {
> > public void doOtherStuff() {
> > // more concrete stuff
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @Entity
> > public class Funk<F extends Foo> {
> > private F foo;
> >
> > public F getFoo() { return foo; }
> >
> > public void setFoo(F foo) { this.foo = foo; }
> > }
> >
>
> The idea would be to allow client code to create "new Funk<ConcreteFoo>()"
> and work with the class in a simpler fashion. (think Foo == Party,
> ConcreteFoo == Person, OtherFoo == Organization and Funk ==
> PartyRelationship for more of a sense what I'm going for here.)
>
> Does this make sense and is it possible? In your blog entry you mention
> the @Type annotation. Can't find references to it anywhere so thought I'd
> ask the expert.
>
> Cheers!
> --
> Alexander R. Saint Croix
>
>
