> The vendor extension elements should end up in different places with field
> and collection tags. If not, can you demonstrate just what happens?
Ok, I see the motivation now. For the extensions I'm using, they go inside
the block. So the @jdo.field-vendor-extension tag is all
that is needed.
The vendor extension elements should end up in different places with field
and collection tags. If not, can you demonstrate just what happens?
thanks
david jencks
On 2003.03.05 08:16 Michael Mattox wrote:
> I build the latest version from CVS and I'm using it now. I noticed this
> in
> the samp
I build the latest version from CVS and I'm using it now. I noticed this in
the samples:
/**
* @jdo.field
* collection-type="collection"
* embedded-element="false"
* element-type="test.jdo.SuperChild"
* default-fetch-group="true"
* @jdo.collection
This is in cvs already. I think I even added some usage in the samples
david jencks
On 2003.03.04 10:37 Michael Mattox wrote:
> A week ago there was a discussion about adding a generic jdo vendor
> extension capability to the XDoclet JDO tags. Something like:
>
>value="true"/>
>
> I r
A week ago there was a discussion about adding a generic jdo vendor
extension capability to the XDoclet JDO tags. Something like:
I remember someone said it was relatively easy by modifying jdo_xml.xdt.
Has there been a patch for this? I've looked at the file and it's not clear
to me w
