Very nice! Is the change available for download now, or just checked in?
-- Michelle
Andy Jefferson wrote:
>>>What if we define a new attribute on field called field-type, and for
>>>the TCK we put in "...SimpleClass"? Would that allow you to map it?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>It certainly sounds doable (not looked at the code ...).
>>
>>
>
>OK, JPOX now supports java.lang.Object as FCO. It's not currently using the
>proposed <field> attribute to notate which classes will actually be stored in
>that field, instead using
><field name="myObjectField>
> <extension vendor-name="jpox" key="implementation-classes"
>value="comma-separated-list-of-PC-classnames-that-can-be-stored-here"/>
></field>
>
>When we have an agreed JDO2 attribute, I'll swap it over to that.
>
>The TCK now gives exceptions of the following style, due to absence of
>possible classes against each Object (or Collection of Object) field :-
>javax.jdo.JDOUserException: Field
>"org.apache.jdo.tck.pc.fieldtypes.ArrayListCollections.ArrayListOfObject2" is
>declared as a reference type (interface/Object) but no implementation classes
>of "java.lang.Object" have been found!
>
>HTH
>
>
|