Anyone think it would be worthwhile in the <TABLE> definition to support not just a javaName for the class, but a pluralName attribute used to generate get(RelatedTable) methods for 1..n (and m..n) relations?
Right now it looks like the OM templates just append "s" to the table name of the related table, which works most of the time but not in the general case. -- Bill -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
