Re: Amber feature question

Unfortunately the new tables are created dynamicly and there can be 
thousands of them.
Generating a new class just to store in a new table does not seem like an 
efficient option.

Am I wrong?

Regards,
Peter Havelaar

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

Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 15:32:47 -0700
From: Scott Ferguson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Amber feature question

On May 30, 2006, at 2:46 AM, Peter Havelaar wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have just been looking into using Amber as a persistence library.
> There is however one feature that I would like to have that has not
> been
> provided for in the JPA standard.
> I would like the ability to store an Entity into a table which I
> supply the
> name for at the time of storing the object.

I'm not sure that's possible.  Actually, I'm not sure it's possible
to implement in any reasonably simple fashion.  The generated code
references the table name directly.  In theory, that could be
parameterized, but would also make the caching code complicated.

Wouldn't it just be easier to have several child classes, one for
each table?  The classes could be identical except for the @Table entry.

- -- Scott