Hi Craig, > Good point. I was thinking perhaps we should use the same technique > that we have already used to good effect with collections and maps. > > What if we define a new attribute on field called field-type, and for > the TCK we put in "...SimpleClass"? Would that allow you to map it? > > The issue is that Object types need to be supported, but as you point > out, there's not enough metadata to give an implementation a clue how > to do it. > > What do you think? If it's doable, I can raise it to the jdo-experts.
It certainly sounds doable (not looked at the code ...). With an attribute like that we would have the same info as for an interface and so we can do the same as we do there (and so a 1-1 relation where a class has an Object field marked as containing SimpleClass would result in a table with a FK column across to the SIMPLECLASS table). -- Andy
