Yes I agree, super-type looks better.
On 27/09/2010 3:45 PM, Mike Norman wrote:
Yeah, I prefer 'super-type'
---
Mike Norman
On 27/09/2010 3:41 PM, douglas clarke wrote:
A little odd that we would use "java-type" and "super-class".
I would suggest either "super-type" or "extends"
<java-type name="model.LargeProject" super-type="model.Project"
<java-type name="model.LargeProject" extends="model.Project"
Doug
On 27/09/2010 2:10 PM, Rick Barkhouse wrote:
Hi all,
We currently do not have any way in OXM to specify the superclass of a
particular java-type. This information will be needed for Dynamic JAXB
because there will be no underlying Java model to introspect.
I don't think there is a real parallel to the JPA style of specifying
inheritance in ORM (e.g. mapped-superclass, inheritance strategy etc),
I think we could simply add a "super-class" attribute. For example:
Any objections to adding super-class ? Non-Dynamic users
would not need to specify this attribute, but if they did it would
override the actual superclass.
--
Rick
Barkhouse | Software Developer, EclipseLink | 613.288.4613
Oracle Development
45 O'Connor Street, Suite 400 | Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4
--
Rick Barkhouse | Software Developer, EclipseLink |
613.288.4613
Oracle Development
45 O'Connor Street, Suite 400 | Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4
|