[hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass

[Steve Ebersole]

Trying to make sure I understand.. so the report is just wrong?  Or is
there some difference in your model versus theirs?


On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:22 PM andrea boriero <andrea at hibernate.org> wrote:

> yes also for the MappedSuperclass
>
> from:
>
> @MappedSuperclass
> public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity {
> @Column( name = "CODE")
> private String code;
>
> @Column( name = "NAME")
> private String name;
> }
>
> @Entity
> public class CatalogEntity extends AbstractCatalogEntity {
> @Id
> private Long id;
> }
>
> I obtained :
>
> @Generated(value = "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor")
> @StaticMetamodel(AbstractCatalogEntity.class)
> public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity_ {
>
> public static volatile SingularAttribute<AbstractCatalogEntity, String>
> code;
> public static volatile SingularAttribute<AbstractCatalogEntity, String>
> name;
>
> public static final String CODE = "code";
> public static final String NAME = "name";
>
> }
>
> @Generated(value = "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor")
> @StaticMetamodel(CatalogEntity.class)
> public abstract class CatalogEntity_ extends
> org.hibernate.userguide.model.AbstractCatalogEntity_ {
>
>         public static volatile SingularAttribute<CatalogEntity, Long> id;
>
>         public static final String ID = "id";
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:52, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The generated model of the MappedSuperclass?
> >
> > Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero <andrea at hibernate.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not
> >> defined in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the
> subclasses
> >> extending it.
> >>
> >> I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify
> >> any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a
> >> subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is
> correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right
> access
> >>> type for a mapped super class:
> >>> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 .
> >>>
> >>> Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole placement
> >>> of
> >>> the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might not
> >>> be
> >>> defined (this is the OP's case).
> >>>
> >>> I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but
> >>> the
> >>> OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access type
> >>> of
> >>> an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping
> annotations
> >>> on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the
> >>> entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type".
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations
> >>> placement
> >>> if there is no @Id annotation.
> >>>
> >>> If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :).
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Guillaume
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> hibernate-dev mailing list
> >>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >>>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>