db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From e...@jpox.org
Subject Re: RunRules for JDO TCK
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:39:18 GMT
The installSchema goal is only handling derby database. Should't exist a generic
implementation that connects to any database using a jdbc driver, reads and
fires sql scripts to database B, C or D?

Quoting Michael Bouschen <mbo.tech@spree.de>:

> Hi Craig,
>
> > Javadogs,
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree with Andy that the schema and orm files for each
> > of the databases we know of should be standard and specified as part of
> > the TCK.
>
> I agree.
>
> >
> > There is nothing in the TCK tests that should be different in the orm
> > files from one database to another. There are differences in the schema
> > based on column data types, and these differences can be captured in
> > database-specific .sql files.
>
> AFAIK there is nothing in the current orm files that needs to change for
> a different database or that requires vendor specific extensions.
>
> >
> > The only thing we lack is broader testing on different databases. But
> > for now, I'll be happy to require that the orm files be identical among
> > different databases, and even happier if we can get some folks to create
> > the xxx.sql files for databases other than derby.
>
> I'm wondering what needs to be done to test a JDO implementation against
> a database <db> different from derby:
> - Copy all the orm files to package-<db>.orm. This is necessary because
> the orm files include the database in its name, e.g. package-derby.orm.
> - Create a new subdirectory <db> under trunk/tck20/test/sql and provide
> the corresponding sql files schema*.sql.
>
> More?
>
> Regards Michael
>
>
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > On Dec 31, 2005, at 1:09 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Craig,
> >>
> >>> Attached please find the first draft of the TCK run rules for JDO
> >>> 2.0. Please comment.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why is the "sql" modifiable "to suit the JDO implementation" ?
> >> Why is the "orm" modifiable "to suit the JDO implementation" ?
> >>
> >> Surely the ORM defines the underlying schema, and so the ORM files
> >> provided
> >> with the TCK are totally compatible with the schema provided with the
> >> TCK.
> >> That is the premise we have been using with JPOX whilst developing the
> >> TCK.
> >> Why is it different for other implementations?
> >> Can we have some examples of why it would be necessary ?
> >> Are we talking about JDO implementations that don't support Apache
> >> Derby ? In
> >> that case would it not be better to have any other RDBMS files
> >> generated be
> >> fed back to the TCK project and then have them under central control? We
> >> can't have one JDO implementation hand crafting its own SQL files and ORM
> >> files and saying that it is "compatible" when the ORM they have
> >> generated may
> >> be incorrect with respect to the spec and the schema it should equate
> >> to. e.g
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Andy
> >
> >
> > 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
>




Mime
View raw message