Panaki: your blog entry on persisting a generic graph

[Alexander Saint Croix <sa...@gmail.com>]

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

Re: Panaki: your blog entry on persisting a generic graph

[Alexander Saint Croix <sa...@gmail.com>]

Dead thread.  The @Type annotation is defined in
org.apache.openjpa.persistence.Type
--
Alex

On Jan 12, 2008 6:07 PM, Alexander Saint Croix <sa...@gmail.com>
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
>
>