Hi Andy, On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
Hi Michael,I think we should use the same name for all four annotation type and if"boundTypes" is not meaningful we should go for "types".+1"types" is shorter, is more meaningful, and is what many people are already using for the @Element, @Key, @Value. Yes I know Apache JDO haven't had arelease, but there are some people who are using them.PS.1. Previously someone added the single form of this to @Field, @Element, @Key, @Value yet they have now silently disappeared. Are they coming back or leaving permanently ? Since I took the time to implement support for it, nowI have to strip it back out ?
The issue here is if both type and types are specified, which one wins? Since types can be both single or multiple types, I think there's less opportunity for error if there is only one element, and types does it. And it is evocative of the notion that even though you specified a type on your field/property (or not, for unadorned collection/map types), there are more constraints on the actual types that you can put into it.
I'm still open to discussion, so if we can come up with an elegant way to solve the "both specified" issue, let's continue.
Meantime, I'll check in the change from boundTypes to boundType to keep things moving.
Craig
PS.2. Can we have some sort of release of Apache JDO jdo2 SNAPSHOT jar to some location (date stamped perhaps) ? You're not in that "incubator" thing now and the only way to demonstrate to people that JDO is still alive is to actually provide them with samples of the deliverable (suitably named torepresent its status). -- Andy (Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)
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
