Which aspect of the generic API are you most interested in? The builder,
getters, or setters?
Most people that use Specific records do so for compile time type safety, so
adding 'set("foo", fooval)' is not desired for those users. On the other
hand it is certainly possible to add it.
The code generated by the specific code generation utility uses templates,
one can add a template that extends what is produced to include generic API
On 4/15/13 11:23 AM, "Christophe Taton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a reason for specific records to not implement the generic API?
> I didn't find any obvious technical reason, but maybe I missed something.