[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Craig,

> It might be a good time (as we're almost done with this) to replace
> @Field and @Property with @Persistent. That would make it easier to
> describe that either a field or property is being described.

While I agree totally with merging @Field and @Property, the use of=20
@Persistent is not appropriate.=20

@PersistenceCapable
public class MyClass
{
 @Persistent(persistenceModifier=3DFieldP
ersistenceModifier.NONE)
String someFieldThatIsNotPersistent
}


so I tag a field that is not persistent with @Persistent ?

Any other idea for name? that suggests field/method/property ?



=2D-=20
Andy =A0(Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Craig,
 
> Doesn't bother me as much as duplicating Field/Property all over.

Me neither, but have to play devils advocate ;-)

> This is another anomaly: FieldPersistenceModifier should become
> PersistenceModifier.

+1.=20
It was a hangover from when I originally had ClassPersistenceModifier and=20
=46ieldPersistenceModifier.

> How about creating a new tag like @NotPersistent. To go along with
> @Transactional and @Persistent.

@Transient is already there :-)

The only place that "persistenceModifier" would then be used is in the=20
specification of persistence of embedded objects, or overriding inherited=20
fields - so the user may wish to *not* persistent a particular field. In th=
is=20
case they would have to use @Persistent(persistenceModifier=3DNONE)




Overriding inherited fields :-
One other area if you really want to provide annotations with the full=20
capability that XML has. In XML you can override (inherited) fields=20
persistence specifications in subclasses. With Annotations this currently=20
isn't possible. This could be remedied by changing the specification of=20
@Field/@Property (@Persistent) to be for  ElementType.TYPE too.

=2D-=20
Andy =A0(Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> Overriding inherited fields :-
> One other area if you really want to provide annotations with the full
> capability that XML has. In XML you can override (inherited) fields
> persistence specifications in subclasses. With Annotations this currently
> isn't possible. This could be remedied by changing the specification of
> @Field/@Property (@Persistent) to be for  ElementType.TYPE too.

except that we would need an @Fields (@Persistents ???) to allow an array
or maybe have "fields"/"properties" under @PersistenceCapable

=2D-=20
Andy =A0(Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> Have I ever told you how much I *hate* using @Transient to describe
> @NotPersistent? Transient is a serialization concept and I have no
> trouble with a field that is both transient and persistent. That is,
> not serialized but stored in the database. So calling something
> @Transient is a big ugly blotch. Because if it's really transient,
> you should mark it in the class as transient.

No. You never told me ;-) nor did anybody else object when those annotation=
s=20
were added a longggg time ago.

So why not @NotPersistent ?

=2D-=20
Andy =A0(Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]