db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Negative VOTE Issue 133: Clarify element-type package names
Date Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:01:01 GMT
Javadogs,

Please reply if you have an issue with this.

Class names for Java language classes must be qualified with  
java.lang currently. This proposal changes the default package name  
for certain java.lang classes.

The key-type, value-type are currently being defined as things like  
Object,
String, SimpleClass whereas the Collection tests use fully-qualified  
names.
While this may be intentional to check the qualification of namings  
it does
raise the issue of what an implementation is supposed to do wrt class  
namings
when not fully-qualified. I refer to spec section 18.14.1
<spec>
The element-type attribute specifies the type of the elements. The  
type name
uses Java rules for naming: if no package is included in the name, the
package name is assumed to be the same package as the persistence- 
capable
class. Inner classes are identified by the "$" marker.
</spec>
<proposed 18.14.1>
The element-type attribute specifies the type of the elements. The  
type name uses Java language rules for naming: if no package is  
included in the name, the package name is assumed to be the same  
package as the persistence-capable class. Inner classes are  
identified by the "$" marker. Classes Boolean, Byte, Character,  
Double, Float, Integer, Long, Number, Object, Short, String, and  
StringBuffer are treated exactly as in the Java language: they are  
first checked to see if they are in the package in which they are  
used, and if not, assumed to be in the java.lang package.
</proposed>

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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message