Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-jdo-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 25626 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2007 08:34:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Oct 2007 08:34:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 14026 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2007 08:34:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jdo-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jdo-user@db.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list jdo-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 14015 invoked by uid 99); 26 Oct 2007 08:34:04 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:34:04 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [203.217.28.148] (HELO mellotron.mel.fluencyfinancial.com) (203.217.28.148) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:34:07 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.122] (unknown [192.168.1.122]) by mellotron.mel.fluencyfinancial.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FE511A561 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:33:34 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <940BB1ED-6673-4A9A-8D78-BC290AE8D47E@gmail.com> References: <53794365-84F5-44C5-8A54-EF6EFB49233E@bund.com.au> <940BB1ED-6673-4A9A-8D78-BC290AE8D47E@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5649FE84-06EC-47C0-BD88-51EDDA806293@bund.com.au> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Drew Lethbridge Subject: Re: column sharing Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:33:33 +1000 To: jdo-user@db.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Yes, I failed to mention that so far it does appear to work in my implementation, which is Kodo 4.1.4. I'm interested in whether it's vendor-dependent or whether JDO Spec should dictate the behaviour of this case in some way... Drew On 26/10/2007, at 1:42 PM, cbeams wrote: > Drew, > > I'd only be speculating if I formed a response to this question, as > I've never attempted what you're trying. > > Have you actually given a go at this? What implementation are you > using? > > - Chris Beams > > > On Oct 25, 2007, at 7:31 PM, Drew Lethbridge wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> I have a question about JDO2.0. When using an inheritance >> strategy of "superclass-table", is it valid for two separate >> subclasses which both have an identically-typed field to actually >> share a database column, rather than specifying a separate column >> for each of the fields? As far as I can tell, the JDO spec is not >> clear on this. Is it completely JDO-vendor implementation >> dependent (i.e. non-portable)? >> >> Below is an illustrative example. B extends A and also C extends >> A. The fields B.f1 and C.f2 are both declared as references to a >> persistence type "F" but defined to share the column named >> F_JDOID. Any potential problems with this? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Drew. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >