Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Andy Jefferson <andy@jpox.org>
To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: JDO 2.1 specification draft can be reviewed...
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 06:47:54 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
Cc: JDO Expert Group <jdo-experts-ext@sun.com>
References: <1186267189.15813.ezmlm@db.apache.org>
 <F29D2AD1-C10D-440A-B698-EDBC02D73BA1@gmail.com>
 <C8AAB68D-55E6-4872-BBEF-EDA8307E6C01@Sun.COM>
In-Reply-To: <C8AAB68D-55E6-4872-BBEF-EDA8307E6C01@Sun.COM>
Organization: JPOX
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708050647.54220.andy@jpox.org>

Hi,

> I'd like to see others' reaction to this proposal as well.
> > 	String getObjectState(Object pc)

I clearly think it's a good idea since that's why JPOX has it ;-)
Anything that adds more information to the user domain and more clearly=20
defines the object states is a good thing.

I agree with the principle of making the return an enum (for the "api21" ja=
r -=20
obviously can't be like that in the legacy jar since that has to support=20
1.3+). The only issue is that HOLLOW and P_NONTRANS have the same=20
combinations of the various "isPersistent", "isTransactional", etc fields a=
nd=20
that is why the JPOX method outputs "hollow / persistent-nontransactional"


=2D-=20
Andy =A0(Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)