Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4317068C.2020009@spree.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:47:56 +0200
From: Michael Bouschen <mbo.tech@spree.de>
Organization: Tech@Spree Engineering
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
CC: JDO Expert Group <jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Persistent interface factory testing proposal
References: <47BABF35-55D4-4FF0-A160-C0C30C728839@Sun.COM>
In-Reply-To: <47BABF35-55D4-4FF0-A160-C0C30C728839@Sun.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Craig,

I like the description! A few comments:

- In the changed xml example you introduced class CompanyFactoryImpl. It 
might be helpful to mention that this class implements the 
CompanyFactory interface, but it does not create the instances itself. 
Instead it delegates to the factory specified by the system property 
jdo.tck.mapping.companyfactory.

- In sentence "The graph that is compared to the persistent graph is 
always constructed using the class factory" it is not clear what is 
meant by class factory. Actually this is the first factory described in 
the list of concepts. Maybe it is easier to move the sentence after the 
bulleted list and then refer the first factory.

- The description uses the name CompanyFactoryImpl for a concrete 
factory implementation: "The strategy for implementation is for a 
concrete class CompanyFactoryImpl that contains ...". The xml sample 
code use the same class name CompanyFactoryImpl as the name of the 
factory that delegates to the concrete factory. I find this confusing.

- The description uses the class name CompanyFactoryAbstractImpl as name 
of the abstract factory, the sample code adds the word "Interface":
CompanyFactoryInterfaceAbstractImpl. I think the description is correct.

- The constructor comment of the abstract factory sample code uses the 
wrong class name.

- The end of the document mentions that we need a factory that uses the 
PM.newInstance method with the pc class as the argument. I propose to 
add this option as the 4th concept under "The persistent graph is 
constructed using one of these concepts:"
the factory calls pm.newInstance on a concrete persistence capable class

- Minor: your text uses class names such as CompletenessTest, 
CompanyFactory,etc. which are resolved as links to other wiki pages. If 
you do not like these to show up as link just add two backquotes before 
the upper case letter in the middle: Completeness``Test.

Regards Michael

> Javadogs,
> 
> Please review http://wiki.apache.org/jdo/PersistentInterfaces for the 
> test strategy for persistent interface factory 
> pm.newInstance(PersistentInterfact.class).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Craig
> 
> 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!
> 
> 


-- 
Michael Bouschen		Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH
mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de	http://www.tech.spree.de/
Tel.:++49/30/235 520-33		Buelowstr. 66			
Fax.:++49/30/2175 2012		D-10783 Berlin