On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Laurie Harper wrote: > Just to let you know: yes, that fixes the problem. The CVS version > reports the error cleanly (well, still with a big stack trace, but > that's not your fault ;-). Thanks for the pointer! > > Something it doesn't seem to fix (which is not so much a bug as an 'I > thought it would work this way' thing) is that 'name' attributes on > ojb.field tags are ignored. I know you can infer a name based on the > name of the Java property being mapped, but if I explicitly specify a > different name I'd like it to be used. Is there a way to get that to happen?
Nope, it is required to be the same as the real name of the java field, otherwise OJB wouldn't find the field. So in short, you cannot specify a different name (as this would refer to a different field). You can however add anonymous fields (put a field tag in the class javadoc comment with a name attribute). Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
