db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From e...@jpox.org
Subject RE: updates to tck11 project
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:47:24 GMT
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