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 16:58:21 GMT
Hi,

This doesn't seem to be an unreasonable restriction, but if it's not in 
the spec we should clarify the spec. If it isn't reasonable, we will 
need to look at the TCK and make sure that we don't require anything 
that the spec doesn't require.

Craig

On Apr 2, 2005, at 1:04 AM, Eric Samson wrote:

> 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