Hi Derek:
Sorry, I have no suggestion, but I can make the solution even harder,
because I think that the following requirement will be very common:
The JPA classes should be usable from Java code, from non-liftweb
Scala code and,.of course, from Liftweb code (ideally, the JPA classes
shoudn't have any dependency on Liftweb classes or traits).
It was a requirement for my first (and only) real application that
used Liftweb, so you may consider it.
Sorry again!
Francois
On Nov 25, 3:24 pm, "Derek Chen-Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We just had a bit of a discussion on integrating JPA with the new Record
> stuff over on the committers list and unintentionally got into some
> substance discussion that would be better handled on the main list. Let me
> sum up:
> First off, the new Record stuff looks great! It's lean, it's mean and it's
> clean. There is still some work to do on fleshing out some implementation
> details and maybe fleshing out some of the base Field support (I'm doing a
> BigDecimal-based field for a book example, would people want to see that?),
> but what's there so far is very nice; David and Marius have done a great
> job.
>
> The issue with JPA, specifically, is that the way it's designed, it infers
> persistent fields on an instance either via getter/setter pairs or via
> annotations on fields. Record, for reasons that I think are completely
> legitimate, uses instance objects instead for field definition. These two
> approaches aren't mutually exclusive, but it does complicate things a bit
> from the JPA perspective. The simplest approach I can think of is to merely
> add the appropriate getter/setter pairs that delegate to the Record object
> fields, like this:
>
> class MyEntity extends Record[MyEntity] {
> object name extends StringField(this,100)
>
> // getter/setter used only by the JPA provider
> @Column{val name = "my_name_"}
> def getName() = name.value
> def setName(newVal : String) = name.set(newVal)
>
> }
>
> This should work, but it does add quite a bit of what is essentially
> boilerplate to the code. I'm hoping that I can find some way to automate or
> generate the appropriate getter/setter pairs for the fields. If anyone has
> any suggestions I would love to hear it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Derek
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
