I sent the following previously but received no response. I'm resending. Scott Leschke
----------------------------------------------- I have some questions regarding persistent interfaces. 1) If a class implements (in the Java sense via the 'implements' clause), an interface that is declared persistent-capable in the metadata, does the corresponding <class> element in the metadata also required to have a corresponding <implements> element or is the element implied by the Java structure? I think one would expect this but the spec doesn't say explicitly. 2) If a class implements a persistent-capable interface, is there a default mapping between the interface properties and class field names (i.e. would a property named "modDate" of type java.util.Date map by default to a field in the implementing class of the same name and type? If not, why not? 3) Based on the spec, I guessing the answer to this is no but given a persistent-capable interface, is there a way to specify that implementation generated instances (i.e. pm.newInstance(interfaceName)) should not be allowed? Regards, Scott Leschke
