db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Aug 12, 9 am PST
Date Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:37:46 GMT
Hi Andy,

On Aug 13, 2005, at 12:21 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>> Good point. I was thinking perhaps we should use the same technique
>> that we have already used to good effect with collections and maps.
>> 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?
>> The issue is that Object types need to be supported, but as you point
>> out, there's not enough metadata to give an implementation a clue how
>> to do it.
>> What do you think? If it's doable, I can raise it to the jdo-experts.
> It certainly sounds doable (not looked at the code ...).
> With an attribute like that we would have the same info as for an  
> interface
> and so we can do the same as we do there (and so a 1-1 relation  
> where a class
> has an Object field marked as containing SimpleClass would result  
> in a table
> with a FK column across to the SIMPLECLASS table).

That's what I was thinking. I'll raise this issue to the expert group.


> -- 
> Andy

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!

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message