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: Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Sep 28 , 9 am PDT
Date Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:37:22 GMT
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.


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!

View raw message