Hi,

I just looked through the company model and noted that the concrete classes=
=20
now have some fields marked with "field-type" in the XML (e.g=20
Company.address). Why? The field has its own type so there is no need to=20
specify that. It is typically for use where a field is an interface and so =
to=20
define the implementation(s) that the field will accept. Is there a reason=
=20
for specifying it ?


=2D-=20
Andy =C2=A0(Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Craig,

> Looking briefly, it looks like the only cases are for the embedded
> Address field. Is this what you are referring to?

That's the one I spotted and didn't look further.



PS. "api2" seems to be missing a couple of files being checked in for a=20
working build
test/java/javax/jdo/annotations/TestEmbeddedSet.java
test/java/javax/jdo/annotations/TestEmbeddedMap.java
=2D change the "embedded" to "embeddedMapping".



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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Craig,

Michelle volunteered to take a look. I think setting the field-type is
not necessary, because the declared Java type is Address, a PC class and
not an interface. It is ok to specify the field-type, but it might be
confusing since it is not necessary. So I propose to remove it.

Regards Michael

> To your field-type issue, I'll take a look at this later. Do you think
> it's causing issues?
>
> Craig
>
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
> 
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>


--
Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH  Tel.: +49/(0)30/235 520-33
Buelowstr. 66                Fax.: +49/(0)30/217 520-12
10783 Berlin                 mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de

Geschaeftsfuehrung: Anna-Kristin Proefrock
Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 564 52

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]