Javadogs,
Please reply if you have an issue with this.
Class names for Java language classes must be qualified with
java.lang currently. This proposal changes the default package name
for certain java.lang classes.
The key-type, value-type are currently being defined as things like
Object,
String, SimpleClass whereas the Collection tests use fully-qualified
names.
While this may be intentional to check the qualification of namings
it does
raise the issue of what an implementation is supposed to do wrt class
namings
when not fully-qualified. I refer to spec section 18.14.1
<spec>
The element-type attribute specifies the type of the elements. The
type name
uses Java rules for naming: if no package is included in the name, the
package name is assumed to be the same package as the persistence-
capable
class. Inner classes are identified by the "$" marker.
</spec>
<proposed 18.14.1>
The element-type attribute specifies the type of the elements. The
type name uses Java language rules for naming: if no package is
included in the name, the package name is assumed to be the same
package as the persistence-capable class. Inner classes are
identified by the "$" marker. Classes Boolean, Byte, Character,
Double, Float, Integer, Long, Number, Object, Short, String, and
StringBuffer are treated exactly as in the Java language: they are
first checked to see if they are in the package in which they are
used, and if not, assumed to be in the java.lang package.
</proposed>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
