Questions regarding persistent interfaces

[Leschke Scott-QA2775 <Sc...@motorola.com>]

I have some questions regarding persistent interfaces.
 
1) If a class implements (in the Java sense via the 'implements'
clause), an interface that is declared persistent-capable in the
metadata, does the corresponding <class> element in the metadata also
required to have a corresponding <implements> element or is the element
implied by the Java structure? I think one would expect this but the
spec doesn't say explicitly.
 
2) If a class implements a persistent-capable interface, is there a
default mapping between the interface properties and class field names
(i.e. would a property named "modDate" of type java.util.Date map by
default to a field in the implementing class of the same name and type?
If not, why not?
 
3) Based on the spec, I guessing the answer to this is no but given a
persistent-capable interface, is there a way to specify that
implementation generated instances (i.e. pm.newInstance(interfaceName))
should not be allowed?
 
Regards,
 
Scott Leschke