[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipselink-dev] bug 340329 - table creation prefix

What would a typical prefix be? (is it really a prefix, or a replacement for "CREATE TABLE"? Is PREFIX the right terminology?)

When would someone choose to use a prefix?  Is this a MAXDB specific thing?

-Tom

Goerler, Adrian wrote:
Hi Chris, others,



https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=340329



we got the requirement to allow overriding the CREATE TABLE keywords in DDL in a table-specific way to leverage special database features. Xu has proposed to introduce a creation-prefix attribute to the table-mappings of eclipselink-orm.xml - analogously to https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=214519. Please find attached a revised proposal including test for this enhancement.



I you are OK with this feature, I would go ahead and check it in.



-Adrian



PS.



Alternatively, I could consider to specify additional requirements on the DDL using @Properties/@Property annotations. Then, one could add hese properties to the TableDefinition, redirect rendering of CREATE TABLE statements to the DatabasePlatform and render the statement in a database-vendor specific way according to the properties recognized by the vendor.



E.g.:





@Table(name=”MY_TABLE”)

@Property(“mysql.jdbc.engine”, “InnoDB”)

@Entity

Public class MyEntity



This, however, would obsolete the creation-suffix just introduced in 2.2 ;-).







*Adrian Görler
**SAP AG

*Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx




------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
eclipselink-dev mailing list
eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev