On Apr 27, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
This extension has been around since JPOX 1.0 (the JDO 1 release), so I
assume that it is actually meant to go in the .jdo file.
Craig,
Can you provide an example of how <interface> and <implements> are going to
work, to confirm how I think they'll work?
I don't have an example of <interface> yet (this should not be needed for the current issue).
In the example we're working on, there is a SimpleClass.jdo that contains:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE jdo PUBLIC "-//Sun Microsystems, Inc.//DTD Java Data Objects Metadata 2.0//EN" "http://java.sun.com/dtd/jdo_2_0.dtd">
<jdo>
<package name="org.apache.jdo.tck.pc.fieldtypes">
<class name="SimpleClass" identity-type="application"
objectid-class="org.apache.jdo.tck.pc.fieldtypes.SimpleClass$Oid">
<field name="id" primary-key="true"/>
</class>
</package>
</jdo>
I expect that to remove the JPOX extension, we will add the <implements> tag as follows:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE jdo PUBLIC "-//Sun Microsystems, Inc.//DTD Java Data Objects Metadata 2.0//EN" "http://java.sun.com/dtd/jdo_2_0.dtd">
<jdo>
<package name="org.apache.jdo.tck.pc.fieldtypes">
<class name="SimpleClass" identity-type="application"
objectid-class="org.apache.jdo.tck.pc.fieldtypes.SimpleClass$Oid">
<implements name="SimpleInterface">
<field name="id" primary-key="true"/>
</class>
</package>
</jdo>
My assumption is that we should be able to use these new tags to specify theCraig Russell
classes that implement a particular interface - hence the same thing that our
"implementation-classes" extension provides. Once we understand it then we
can think about implementing those in JPOX and removing the extension.
--
Andy
Java Persistent Objects JDO - JPOX
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
