Ah, I think I have misunderstood, and it's the subtle (at least to my brain) distinction between SDO and SDO_DataObject. What do you mean by "adding a property to the extension"? I'm not aware of an interface we expose called "SDO" so jumped to the conclusion that this was the SDO_DataObject. Why would this not be on the SDO_DAS_XML?
On 5 Jun, 13:20, Caroline Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Charters wrote: > > I mentioned the proxies as one of the two areas where we need to keep > > the interface clean (the other was SDO). I mentioned SDO because the > > "cache" appears to be on the SDO interface in Matthew's example code > > (unless I've misunderstood). > > No, you haven't misunderstood, I just haven't quite grasped why adding a > property to the extension would be a problem (actually I think it > would for various reasons have to be an object rather than a pure array > as originally proposed to Matthew - sorry for misleading you - but > that's irrelevant to this question). It doesn't affect the > SDO_DataObject interface. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "phpsoa" group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
