Hi Rob, There should not be any Client library special implementation about this item. The attribute is still just text, just provide the attribute correctly and it will be processed in the backend. So I guess you could use an old Java library.
You can learn more about this feature here: http://base.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66818 Cheers, Nicolas On Nov 12, 10:56 pm, icebackhaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow, must have been in a weird state when I wrote that. > > What I'm really asking is if the new, more structured approach to > product_type values (i.e. general>moreSpecific) requires one to use a > java library more recent than 1.20? Or, since it's still "just a > string", does the older library still work just fine given the new > style of string? > > Hope that's clearer. > > Thanks. > > On Nov 11, 10:48 pm, icebackhaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I missed any news related to the API regarding the additional > > structure one my now embed in the product_type slot. Do I need to get > > a new release of the java library if I'm currently using 1.20? > > > Thanks, --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Base Data API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Base-data-API?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
