db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Linskey <...@solarmetric.com>
Subject Re: updates to tck11 project
Date Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:39:49 GMT
On Apr 2, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Wes Biggs wrote:

> Now, if we had a way to delineate exactly what types are defined as 
> mappable for a field, it might be reasonable for the ORM part of the 
> TCK to exercise these types (or one of them).  Beyond that I don't 
> think this should be part of the TCK.

I think that we should delineate what types *must be* defined as 
mappable, but we should not limit additional types. To put this a bit 
more explicitly, an implementation that can store a field of a type not 
explicitly mentioned in the spec should not be out of compliance.

-Patrick

-- 
Patrick Linskey
SolarMetric Inc.


Mime
View raw message