Hi Andy,
I think the name boundTypes should suggest that this is the list of
possible types a value of the field can have. And this is not
necessarily the same as the declared type of the field in the Java
source. The XML uses the singular version and uses different names per
context: "field-type", "element-type", "key-type" and "value-type".
I think we should use the same name for all four annotation type and if
"boundTypes" is not meaningful we should go for "types".
Regards Michael
Hi Craig,
Given that we had fieldType and fieldTypes in @Field and @Property,
and type and types in @Element, @Key, and @Value, I made them
consistent by changing types to boundTypes in @Element, @Key, and
@Value.
Is this what we want? Or should we change boundTypes back to types
for all four annotation types?
"boundTypes" does absolutely nothing for me. I don't see what is wrong
with "types" and "fieldTypes", and that is, after all, what the XML has.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH Tel.: +49/(0)30/235 520-33
Buelowstr. 66 Fax.: +49/(0)30/217 520-12
10783 Berlin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Anna-Kristin Proefrock
Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 564 52
