Javadogs,
I agree with Erik that the spec should more closely follow Java
semantics.
Here's the proposed spec change:
<spec 18.14.1>
The element-type attribute specifies the type of the elements. The
type name uses Java language rules for naming: if no package is
included in the name, the package name is assumed to be the same
package as the persistence-capable class. Inner classes are
identified by the "$" marker. Classes Boolean, Byte, Character,
Double, Float, Integer, Long, Number, Object, Short, String, and
StringBuffer are treated exactly as in the Java language: they are
first checked to see if they are in the package in which they are
used, and if not, assumed to be in the java.lang package.
</spec>
Craig
On Oct 26, 2005, at 5:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The only other interpretation that I would support is to literally do
what Java does: for these specific type names (String, Integer, etc.
list of 10 names), look first in the named package for the type, and
if not found, go to java.lang to resolve them.
I like better this
