db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthew T. Adams" <matthew.ad...@xcalia.com>
Subject RE: updates to tck11 project
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:39:59 GMT
>From a specification standpoint (I just checked), I guess you can
require that your users make their Object-typed field instances
serializable (section 6.4.3), since you are allowed to restrict the
instances that can be stored in these cases.  If they don't implement
Serializable, you can throw a ClassCastException and still be compliant
with the spec.

<quotation>
Object Class type
JDO implementations must support fields of Object class type as FCOs.
The implementation
is permitted, but is not required, to allow any class to be assigned to
the field. If an implementation
restricts instances to be assigned to the field, a ClassCastException
must be
thrown at the time of any incorrect assignment.

Portable JDO applications must not depend on whether these fields are
treated as SCOs or FCOs.
</quotation>

--matthew

>-----Original Message-----
>From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org] 
>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:47 PM
>To: matthew.adams@xcalia.com
>Cc: jdo-dev@db.apache.org; jdo-experts-ext@sun.com
>Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>
>
>I ask if a JDO implementation, in order to support 
>java.lang.Object, can require
>from the classes to be persisted to implement Serializable.
>
>Are there any requirements from LIDO to store Object types?
>
>Quoting "Matthew T. Adams" <matthew.adams@xcalia.com>:
>
>> LiDO supports it.  Any instance stored in the field whose 
>type is Object
>> must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped.
>>
>> --matthew
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>> >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM
>> >To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>> >Cc: jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM
>> >Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>> >
>> >
>> >I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
>> >implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what 
>about others?
>> >
>> >Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
>> >
>> >
>> >Erik Bengtson
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
>> >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
>> >To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>> >Subject: updates to tck11 project
>> >
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I have made the following commits to tck11:
>> >
>> >-  Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
>> >-  Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the
>> >runtck.single
>> >and enhance.*identity goals.
>> >
>> >-- Michelle
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>



Mime
View raw message