Andy Jefferson wrote:
>>1. Enum tests: Michelle is just about ready to check in. Running last
>>tests. In JPOX, enums are not persistent by default and seem to have
>>trouble with numeric types. AI Michelle check in tests; AI Craig
>>update spec to mandate enums as singleton, immutable objects and
>>allow other enum support;
>>
>>
>
>So are enum fields going to be default "persistent" now ?
>Await to see what tests we are talking about here ... persistence?,
>retrieval?, JDOQL?, something else, because we obviously have some of our own
>and test the majority of things. The only known issue is for JDOQL
>expressions comparing an enum field with the enum value (when it was
>persisted as a numeric). Comparing with the enum ordinal works fine in that
>situation.
>
>
Tests were just checked in. Try, for example, models1.conf, where we get:
test(org.apache.jdo.tck.models.fieldtypes.TestFieldsOfSimpleEnum)javax.jdo.JDODataStoreException:
Cannot set String parameter: value = AL for column
"applicationidentity1.FIELDSOFENUMORDINAL.ENUM94" : Invalid character
string format for type INTEGER.
I know this is supposed to work, so maybe you can tell us what's going
wrong.
Other issues: enums not persistent by default in jpox, as you know, and
arrays of enums not supported.
-- Michelle
>
>
>>Email discussion: Proposed method to ask the persistence manager for
>>managed instances might have a signature Object[ ] getManagedInstances
>>(ObjectState[ ], Class... classes) which filters instances based on
>>their state and class. This could be part of 2.1 or deferred to 2.2.
>>Is this something that JPOX wants to see sooner?
>>
>>
>
>JPOX already has
>Collection PM.getManagedObjects()
>and could have any of the mentioned combinations pretty fast ;-)
>
>
>
|