Hi David, I don't understand what you want to achieve with your code? Please explain your approach a bit.
thanks, Thomas > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: David Rault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Dezember 2002 10:52 > An: OJB Users List > Betreff: Re: mapping inheritance tree in one table > > > At 10:36 2002-12-04 +0100, you wrote: > >Hi all > >i've been looking through the tutorials to do inheritance > mapping of a > >whole inheritance tree in a single table > >and i've seen that it is _required_ to have a field in the > objects that > >contains the class name ... > > > >why is it so ? > >shouldn't it be possible to tell OJB to call > getClass().getName() on its > >own for the FieldDescriptor storing the instance type in db ? > >has somebody thought a solution for this (e.g. write a > PersistentField > >implemenation that can do it) ? > > > >Thanks for your time > > > >David > > hi again, > actually i've been thinking of a possible PersistentField > implementation > (see attached file) > it seems very simple, (so simple it feels weird ;) ) > > what do you think ? > > thanks > David > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
