I agree with Pawel. If we leave the Order By clause present for all List types, then there is no way out. But, if we remove the Order By clause for the List types (per the spec), then users have the option to designate an ordering via the OrderColumn or OrderBy annotations. I'm beginning to lean towards Pawel's earlier remark that this just sounds like a bug...
Kevin On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Pawel Veselov <[email protected]>wrote: > Well, but the spec explicitly says that you shouldn't count on the order to > be same across contexts. There is a cost to do an 'order by' clause, and if > all what I want is to arrange my objects in a list (because I want to use > list API calls), I have to pay the cost, and there is no option for me. > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Pinaki Poddar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > A persistent property declared as a list maintains its order across > > persistence contexts is a useful feature. It does not sound unnecessary > to > > me as an user. If the user does not require the order, the field can be > > declared as Collection or Set. Why to take away an useful feature? > > > > >
