Hm, OK, I am a real newbie to this and am having problems determining how I create my mapping to get the desired behaviour I am looking for.

I have three java classes, one is a superclass of the other two. Each of the subclasses should map to their own database table, the superclass maps to no table at all but simply holds mapped properties common to the two subclasses. So I have an Animal superclass that holds properties common to the two subclass types Cat and Dog. There is no Animal table, just Cat and Dog tables (and this is legacy that I am dealing with so I can't change the table structures).

Do I use a subclass or joined-subclass mapping for this? I think I am to use joined-subclass mappings for Cat and Dog, but I don't see where in a joined-subclass mapping that I provide the table name and what mapping do I provide then for the Animal class since I don't want it mapped to a table at all?

Sorry if this is simple and obvious, but I'm not getting it.....

Heh the documentation has never been real clear on this, its supposed to be "obvious". No special mapping is needed. Just two <class> mappings :)

Oh! Yes, it does work exactly. I had tried that but it hadn't worked so I looked to the subclass and joined-subclass mappings. But I must have just had something wrong because I just tried it again as you suggested and it worked just fine.

Thanks Gavin.