The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

Java Buzz Forum
What should go in the annotations for "transparent persistence"

0 replies on 1 page.

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 0 replies on 1 page
dion

Posts: 5028
Nickname: dion
Registered: Feb, 2003

Dion Almaer is the Editor-in-Chief for TheServerSide.com, and is an enterprise Java evangelist
What should go in the annotations for "transparent persistence" Posted: Sep 13, 2004 7:29 PM
Reply to this message Reply

This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz by dion.
Original Post: What should go in the annotations for "transparent persistence"
Feed Title: techno.blog(Dion)
Feed URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/dion
Feed Description: blogging about life the universe and everything tech
Latest Java Buzz Posts
Latest Java Buzz Posts by dion
Latest Posts From techno.blog(Dion)

Advertisement
JSR 250: Common Annotations for the Java Platform is out there, and you can request to join the expert group. The scope is hard to work out: This JSR will develop annotations for common semantic concepts in the J2SE and J2EE platforms that apply across a variety of individual technologies. What does this mean? I agree with the desire to standardize on annotations. That is needed, else we will have a million annotations for the same thing (we need the equiv of java.lang.* and java.package.* and ....). However, I worry that we will have a group making decisions that should be deferred. Again, this group could be an unbrella group for others which come up with more specialised topics... which yet shouldn't be in their own specs. For example, OR mapping can be shared between JDO and EJB (although I would prefer that there was ONE transparent persistence spec... but I won't go there ;). I would rather see a small spec/group formed for this. Then we get to the next point, which is what would we want to annotate here. I agree with some of the JDO expert group that want to restrict annotations to the model (@Persistent, @Inverse), and we don't clutter it with deployment info (@Table(Name="FOO")). And if I see raw SQL in the annotations. Ewww!

Read: What should go in the annotations for "transparent persistence"

Topic: Pnuts Updates (New built-in function: unuse, Bug fixes, etc.) Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: Pie Decorators!

Sponsored Links



Google
  Web Artima.com   

Copyright © 1996-2019 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use