db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ilan Kirsh <ki...@objectdb.com>
Subject Re: Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Sep 28 , 9 am PDT
Date Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:55:20 GMT
Hi Craig,

Thank you for the clarification and the support.
I was hoping it is just a misunderstanding.

Of course, patch is better than exclude (if time permits).
I am looking forward to the fixed 2.0.1 branch.

Regards, Ilan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig L Russell" <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>
Cc: <jdo-dev@db.apache.org>; <jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Sep 28 , 9 am PDT


> Hi Ilan,
> 
> I was afraid I didn't spend quite enough time on this writeup to be  
> completely clear.
> 
> The intent is to update the 2.0.1 branch such that a compliant  
> implementation can pass the tck with this branch. This means that  
> tests that are in violation of the 2.0 specification should either be  
> patched to avoid the violation or be excluded. As you have correctly  
> pointed out, several issues remain in the 2.0.1 branch and we'd like  
> to fix this branch.
> 
> Where it is not desirable to exclude the incorrect test, it needs to  
> be patched. That's the approach we are trying to take, to avoid  
> excluding tests. So for your example for JDO-529, the update needs to  
> be merged from the 2.1 trunk to the 2.0.1 test case challenge branch.  
> That's the action item that Michelle took: to review the errors and  
> merge the fixes to the branch.
> 
> Thanks for working with us on this.
> 
> Craig
> 
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Ilan Kirsh wrote:
> 
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>>> 2. Test challenges. Some challenges have been filed by Ilan. Most   
>>> have been fixed in 2.1 maintenance (trunk) and one of them is   
>>> unresolved but can be fixed in the challenge resolution branch  
>>> 2.0.1  interim to a final fix in 2.1 maintenance.
>>> Clarification: The 2.1 maintenance work is being done on the  
>>> trunk.  We created a 2.0.1 branch that has no API changes from 2.0  
>>> but has  fixes for the tck where a specification clarification or  
>>> API change  would be needed to pass the tck. A compliant JDO 2.0  
>>> implementation  should be able to pass the latest tck test in the  
>>> 2.0.1 branch.
>>
>> I am not sure I understand this. Currently it is impossible for a  
>> compliant
>> JDO implementation to pass the latest tck tests in the 2.0.1 branch.
>>
>> For instance, look at:
>>    http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-529
>> As you explained very well in a comment to this issue on 16 Sep 2007,
>> an implementation should return 4 result objects rather than 3.
>>
>> I suggest adding these 5 tests to the exclude list of branch 2.0.1.
>>
>> Otherwise, until the release of JDO 2.1 no implementation can be
>> JDO compliance (unfortunately including the reference implementation),
>> because you can only pass the tests by violating the specification.
>>
>> Regards, Ilan
>>
>>
> 
> 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