Isn't type timestamp a long value? - Brill Pappin -----Original Message----- From: David Goodenough [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:46 PM To: users@openjpa.apache.org Subject: Problem with Postgresql TIMESTAMP objects
In my application I am using an @Version field which is a timestamp. I declare is (in Basic for those following the saga) @Version @Temporal(TemporalType.TIMESTAMP) private Date version; (and that is a java.util.Date, not a java.sql.Date). But when loading the metadata for the classes it says:- 2019 bucksmusic TRACE [main] openjpa.MetaData - Resolving field "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". 2019 bucksmusic TRACE [main] openjpa.MetaData - "version" has mapping strategy "none". 2020 bucksmusic TRACE [main] openjpa.MetaData - Resolving field "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". 2020 bucksmusic TRACE [main] openjpa.MetaData - "fullName" has mapping strategy "org.apache.openjpa.jdbc.meta.strats.StringFieldStrategy". So it has correctly identified fullName as being a String, but for version the strategy is none, where is should be TimestampVersionStrategy (I presume). Is this something I have set up wrong? If I try changing version to being an int, it works. But I had thought from the manual that using a Date field was an option? David
