Hi Pinaki, Now it seems much more useful. the Graph<T> you said seems interesting to me. I am going to see if it can help me in our project.
Thanks Pinaki Poddar wrote: > > Hi, > You can also define relations in terms of a interface (say T), tell > OpenJPA that at runtime you will at supply a Persistence capable instance > for the interface (see @Type annotation in the doc). > > Effectively you can define a class say Graph<T> with generic type T and > persist with Person or City at runtime as the node of the real graph. > > > > is_maximum wrote: >> >> Thanks Craig, >> Yes it reduces the redundant code. But I was thinking of a great idea >> behind that which may leads me to a revolution in my application :) >> >> >> >> Craig L Russell wrote: >>> >>> Hi is_, >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:45 AM, is_maximum wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Can anyone explain what is the ManagedInterface good for? What >>>> benefit would >>>> achieve if we define all of our entities as interfaces? >>> >>> If your entities are pure data (no behavior) then defining them as >>> interfaces reduces mindless code generation for the implementation of >>> get and set methods. All you do is declare the methods and OpenJPA >>> does the rest. >>> >>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://n2.nabble.com/What-is-ManagedInterface-tp2449023p2449023.html >>>> Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >>> Craig L Russell >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/What-is-ManagedInterface-tp2449023p2453694.html Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
