> >My scenario is simple: > > > >MyInterface > >MyAbstractClass implements MyInterface > >MyClass extends MyAbstractClass > >(and a few more subclasses) > > > >where > > > >-all of them are provided with ojb.class, mapped to the same table > >-MyAbstractClass contains artificial primary key and ojbConcreteClass field > >and several ojb.xxx (fields, refs., collections, nested..) > >-MyClass contains MyClass() constructor and another ojb.xxx > > > >I assume, this is not the special case, where the factory would be > >necessary, is it? > > > > > I don't think so, no. Though if you're using the interface in a > persistent relationship (e.g. as the referenced object in a persistent > reference), then you have to declare in the interface getter/setter > methods in the interface for at least the primary key and ojbConcreteClass > Also, the abstract class probably doesn't require the ojb.class tag > unless you're referencing it somewhere else in the repository metadata.
Maybe it's the problem - I declared them (pk, ojbConcreteClass) in the abstract class and referenced the interface. David > Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
