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: pmf not closed
Date Tue, 03 May 2005 22:44:33 GMT
Hi Erik,

It is true that setting the dependency in the metadata will solve the 
problem.

However, I am concerned that depending (pun unintentional) on the 
implementation to properly order the deletes based on the metadata is 
using an advanced feature for simple test cases.

So in my opinion, it's better to explicitly put the deletes in the 
proper order for these tests and have a different explicit test for 
dependency.

Thanks,

Craig

On May 3, 2005, at 3:09 PM, erik@jpox.org wrote:

> Quoting Michael Bouschen <mbo.tech@spree.de>:
>
>> Hi Michelle,
>>
>> thanks for testing.
>>
>>> Hi, Michael,
>>>
>>> The tests still don't pass because you are attempting to delete the
>>> PCPoints before the PCRects.  Even though it is one transaction, you
>>> have to change the order as I did below.
>>
>> I agree we need to change the order and delete PCRect instances first 
>> as
>> you suggest. The cleanup code should succeed in any case. But maybe 
>> this
>> scenario is an interesting test for the TCK delete test. I think the 
>> JDO
>> implementation should reorder the SQL DELETE statements according to 
>> the
>> foreign keys in the database such that the transaction succeeds no
>> matter which instances the user deleted first in the JDO transaction.
>>
>
> If the fields lowerRight and upperLeft ate set as dependent in the 
> metadata,
> this will probably solve the issue.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik Bengtson
>
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