See inline... > > 1 - Should the field-name attribute be used to generate the field > > in the class? > > No. The intent of the persistent interface is that the JDO > implementation creates an "anonymous" implementation class. There is > no requirement to even create a persistence-capable class; it's > perfectly fine to use dynamic Proxy as a strategy and to not even > define fields with names. > >
JPOX is using another strategy. It creates the PersistenceCapable at runtime, and that's the context for the question. > > 2 - There is no attribute that defines the binary name of the > > generated class at > > runtime. We may need a metadata attribute to allow specifying it, > > and secondly, > > we should define a default naming for the generated class if not > > specified in > > the metadata. > > > > I have two proposals for a default: > > > > - <interface-package>.Jdo<interface-classname> > > - <interface-package>.<interface-classname>Impl > > > See above. There is no value in having a persistence-capable concrete > class visible to the user, as there is no user-visible behavior of > such a class. The only thing that a user can and should rely on is > that the persistent properties are available from the implementation > instance. > > It seems that I wasn't clear in my reply below. Probably because > there are two different uses for persistent interfaces and properties. > Yes you were. Sorry for not inputing the context
