Hi Craig,
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.
does this apply the metadata attributes field-type, element-type,
key-type and value-type?
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?
I think support for a field with multiple types in its field-type
attribute should not be required. But maybe it makes sense to specify
the syntax as a comma separated list of type names in case a JDO
implementation does support this feature.
Regards Michael
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!
--
Michael Bouschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tech.spree.de/
Tel.:++49/30/235 520-33 Buelowstr. 66
Fax.:++49/30/2175 2012 D-10783 Berlin
