Ah, I think I have misunderstood, and it's the subtle (at least to my
brain) distinction between SDO and SDO_DataObject. What do you mean
by "adding a property to the extension"? I'm not aware of an
interface we expose called "SDO" so jumped to the conclusion that this
was the SDO_DataObject. Why would this not be on the SDO_DAS_XML?
On 5 Jun, 13:20, Caroline Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Charters wrote:
> > I mentioned the proxies as one of the two areas where we need to keep
> > the interface clean (the other was SDO). I mentioned SDO because the
> > "cache" appears to be on the SDO interface in Matthew's example code
> > (unless I've misunderstood).
> No, you haven't misunderstood, I just haven't quite grasped why adding a
> property to the extension would be a problem (actually I think it
> would for various reasons have to be an object rather than a pure array
> as originally proposed to Matthew - sorry for misleading you - but
> that's irrelevant to this question). It doesn't affect the
> SDO_DataObject interface.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at