Hi Andy,
This is great news! One question below.
On Apr 29, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
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>
Craig/Michelle,
I've added support for <implements> to JPOX CVS - will be in the next nightly
build, dated 20050430 or later. You should be able to do as per the example
above. Give it a try and report any problems on the forum - would be nice to
avoid using any JPOX extensions in your TCK code.
It does rely on JPOX having already encountered the MetaData for a class that
has the <implements> at the point when the list of classes implementing the
interface is needed. So in your example above, it will need to have met the
"SimpleClass" class (and its MetaData) at the point when the
"SimpleInterface" is first met.
So is it sufficient that the SimpleInterface metadata be ahead of the SimpleClass metadata in the .jdo file?
Thanks,
Craig
The JPOX "implementation-classes" is still valid to be used since, as Erik
said, defines which classes are valid to be used for a particular field.
-- Andy Java Persistent Objects JDO - JPOX
Craig Russell 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
