> > 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?
> It certainly sounds doable (not looked at the code ...).
OK, JPOX now supports java.lang.Object as FCO. It's not currently using the
proposed <field> attribute to notate which classes will actually be stored in
that field, instead using
<field name="myObjectField>
<extension vendor-name="jpox" key="implementation-classes"
value="comma-separated-list-of-PC-classnames-that-can-be-stored-here"/>
</field>
When we have an agreed JDO2 attribute, I'll swap it over to that.
The TCK now gives exceptions of the following style, due to absence of
possible classes against each Object (or Collection of Object) field :-
javax.jdo.JDOUserException: Field
"org.apache.jdo.tck.pc.fieldtypes.ArrayListCollections.ArrayListOfObject2" is
declared as a reference type (interface/Object) but no implementation classes
of "java.lang.Object" have been found!
HTH
--
Andy
