Hi Craig,

> The issue here is if both type and types are specified, which one
> wins? Since types can be both single or multiple types, I think
> there's less opportunity for error if there is only one element, and
> types does it. And it is evocative of the notion that even though you
> specified a type on your field/property (or not, for unadorned
> collection/map types), there are more constraints on the actual types
> that you can put into it.

No problem with just having the "types" element for me ... that's what I ha=
d=20
originally :-). What the user types
@Element(types=3DMyElement.class)
compared to the single form
@Element(type=3DMyElement.class)
is so similar I didn't see the point of the single form variant and, of=20
course, it also allows multiple values for implementations that support it.=
=20
Just want to avoid that option being included and then removed, and then ba=
ck=20
in again.

> Meantime, I'll check in the change from boundTypes to types to keep thing=
s=20
> moving.=20

Thx.=20
JPOX CVS now builds with latest Apache JDO jdo2-api.jar=20
(@Persistent,@Element,@Key,@Value "boundTypes" -> "types", and also=20
@Element,@Key,@Value "embedded" change). I've started the "nightly" build=20
running so there are jars if anyone wants to run with it.


=2D-=20
Andy =A0(Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]