Re: [VOTE] Issue 139: Add attribute field-type to element field

[Craig L Russell]

Hi Andy, I don't have a problem with using the element-type to be a comma-separated list as a vendor extension, but in general there is no way to map a heterogeneous (Object or interface type) field.  So I don't think that we should specify the comma-separated list of possible types as a standard technique. What do others think about this? Craig On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:11 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote: Hi Craig, This proposal would allow more specific field type to be specified at deployment time compared to compile time. For example, a field of type Object could be specified in the jdo metadata as containing only instances of type SimpleClass. I don't read the proposal as saying that the user should specify the type(s)  as comma-separated if they want a field declared as Object to store class A  or class B or class C. What does the user do when they have a field declared  as Object and want to do this ? --  Andy 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