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 Re: [spec comment] jdoNewInstance
Date Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:02:53 GMT
Hi Erik,

Sorry, you are right. The spec is inconsistent. I agree with you that  
21.20 is right and 7.5 is wrong. This will go on the "errata" list  
for the next spec update.

Craig

On Mar 6, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:

> Craig,
>
> I thought it was a correction rather than an item to discuss. See  
> spec 21.20
>
> Quoting Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>:
>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> If the spec were still open, I'd agree to discuss it. But it  
>> isn't. :-
>> ( We can look at this for a future revision.
>>
>> By the way, the rationale was that it's less work in the enhancer to
>> generate the code, but I admit the rationale is weak. But either way,
>> it's a matter of the implementation checking for null or catching a
>> NullPointerException versus catching a JDOFatalInternalException. I'd
>> guess it's a "startup cost".
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 7.5
>>> "If the class is abstract, null is returned."
>>>
>>> but should be "If the class is abstract, a
>>> JDOFatalInternalException is thrown."
>>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>
>
>

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