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 Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, July 14 9 am PST
Date Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:34:53 GMT
Attendees: Michelle Caisse, Matthew Adams, Michael Bouschen, Kristian  
Ernst, Erik Bengtson, Craig Russell

Agenda:

1. JDO2 Annotations: 1, 2, or 3 (any and all) Technically, we might  
be better off having JDO annotations. But since 220 has already  
defined annotations, it might be better to use them. On the other  
side, Versant customers don't want to include 220 annotation  
libraries in their code just to annotate classes as persistence- 
capable. Perhaps a way around this is to define JDO annotations  
completely, but allow JDO implementations to accept 220 annotations.  
This might require that the JDO specification define the mapping from  
220 to JDO annotations, to avoid portability issues where there is  
ambiguous mapping. Overriding rules (metadata specified in  
annotations plus xml) need to be defined as well.

AI: everyone respond to the discussion on the expert group alias.

AI: Erik document 220 annotations that don't have a corresponding JDO  
concept.

2. Deletion of objects when foreign-key is present (JDO-392) (any and  
all) It seems that there are two different issues: managing the  
memory model and managing the database. Craig opines that the general  
case of consistency is already covered in the chapter on mapping,  
requiring that the object model be consistent after a flush. Object  
model consistency would disallow a reference to a deleted object, so  
the natural behavior would be to nullify the reference to the deleted  
object. For to-many relationships mapped to a foreign key on the  
other side, the consistency rule would delete the reference from the  
collection on the one- side of the relationship. So it seems that the  
JPOX behavior as originally reported is consistent and we might  
simply document it in the specification.

AI Craig write up the proposal.

AI Erik write up JPOX behavior.

3. Subqueries in JDOQL (any and all) Michael still has the action  
item to follow up on Craig's queries using the proposed update to the  
query. Proposal is to define subqueries using the variable definition.

Action Items from weeks past:

[Jun 30 2006]   AI everyone: Look at the link JPOX sent out for their  
annotations.

[Jun 30 2006]   Craig sent around some more example queries.  AI:  
Michael will propose a JDOQL query that will handle them.  AI:  
Matthew will send follow-up email on his proposal.

[Jun 23 2006]  AI Craig  update ChangeLog and ChangeLog15 pages and  
ask for review by EG. AI  Martin look at what Hibernate and TopLink  
support for Enum types.

[Jun 23 2006]  AI everyone look at and respond to the JDOQL  
subqueries thread.

[Jun 2 2006] Additional query tests for projecting variables are in   
Craig's workspace. AI  Craig: file a JIRA with patches to be reviewed.

[Jun 2 2006] AI team: go through the open issues and assign relevant  
issues to the maintenance release.

[Apr 14 2006] AI Craig: update the roadmap for JDO. In progress.

[Nov 4 2005] AI Martin: Update Martin's wiki with discusion of JDK     
1.5 issues. In progress

[Sep 2 2005] AI: To recruit members, update the web site. Articles    
on  TheServerSide directing attention to the site. T-shirts,     
logo.    AI:  Craig write a ServerSide article.

-- Michelle

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