db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michelle Caisse <Michelle.Cai...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, Nov 2
Date Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:38:54 GMT
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 
Tests were just checked in. Try, for example, models1.conf, where we get:


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 

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 ;-)

View raw message