db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: updates to tck11 project
Date Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:10:11 GMT
Hi Erik,

I've logged this as Issue 98.

On Apr 2, 2005, at 1:34 AM, erik@jpox.org wrote:

> I'm okay with it; could we include in the spec that Object fields must
> either implement Serializable or PC ?

This probably goes too far in requiring implementations to support 
arbitrary Objects that implement PC. The issue is that PC isn't quite 
strong enough as a restriction. For example, an implementation might 
require, during mapping, for any Object assigned to the field to 
implement an interface that it knows how to map to the datastore. This 
is a limitation of the mapping that isn't expressed in the object 
model.

I'm struggling just a bit with how to word this in the specification...

An alternative is to remove these cases from the TCK but that leaves 
the spec a bit untested (untestable?).

Craig

>
> Erik Bengtson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eric@xcalia.com [mailto:eric@xcalia.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 11:05 AM
> To: erik@jpox.org; jdo-dev@db.apache.org; 'JDO Expert Group'
> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>
> Erik
>
> In LiDO when an attribute is a java.lang.Object we don't impose the
> referenced object to be serializable if it is a PC. But if it is not a
> PC it
> must be Serializable, as for embedded objects.
>
> Best Regards
> .:
> Eric Samson, xcalia
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
> Envoyé : samedi 2 avril 2005 10:19
> À : jdo-dev@db.apache.org; 'JDO Expert Group'
> Objet : RE: updates to tck11 project
>
> If all implementations require that Object type fields to implement
> Serializable, in the JDO spec we should mention it and in the TCK
> classes
> should implement Serializable.
>
> The only thing I don't want is to have to hack the TCK in order to pass
> the
> tests.
>
> Erik Bengtson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Russell [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 2:33 AM
> To: JDO Expert Group; jdo-dev@db.apache.org
> Subject: Re: updates to tck11 project
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure what the question is here. Is it whether the TCK correctly
> tests the Object field type?
>
> Craig
>
> On Apr 1, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Mime
View raw message