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 00:33:02 GMT
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!

Mime
View raw message