Both the JPA spec and the OpenJPA doc implies that if I have annotations on a field and a definition for the field in my orm.xml file, the annotations for that field will be ignored and only the XML definition will be used. Is that correct?
I believe I've found a situation where that isn't exactly true, and I'd like to understand whether this is a bug or a misunderstanding. I prefer to define "logical" annotations and "physical" XML. This effectively means that many annotations would be ignored, but I like seeing the logical relationships defined in the entity class. I have numerous "OneToMany" annotations defined in my entities, with the corresponding physical XML. What I accidentally discovered is that I had some entities where I had added "(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)" to the annotation, but I never added the corresponding setting to the XML. I found those relationships were being eagerly fetched. When I tried removing the "fetch" setting in the annotation, the relationship became lazily fetched. So, although the docs say that the overriding is at the "field" level, and not the "piece of a field" level, it appears that the settings in the annotation and the XML have been "merged" in some way. Is the "fetch" setting an exception to the rule as I understand it? Are there other exceptions to this? Is this a bug, according to the spec?
