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: JDO-58
Date Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:41:10 GMT
Hi Michael,

On Jun 1, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Michael Watzek wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
>>>> And we should probably disallow pmf == null in cases where there is 
>>>> work to do.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure. Do you mean that the test result is ERROR for test 
>>> cases having "pmf == null in cases where there is work to do"? Let 
>>> me know if you feel strong on this.
>> I think so. Since this is a new feature, any test case that uses 
>> tearDown methods should leave the PMF open. Can you think of a case 
>> where this is not true?
> No. My question is: Do we want to *force* test cases to leave the PMF 
> open when they add tear down instances and/or classes?

Yes. Unless we can think of cases where the test method wants instances 
removed but needs to close the PMF for some reason. I think in these 
cases we can let the test method clean itself.

Craig

>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
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