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, Mar 27, 9 am PDT
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:21:31 GMT
Correction: Matthew Adams joined the call in progress.

Craig

On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> Attendees: Michelle Caisse, Michael Bouschen, Craig Russell
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1.  M2 repo error. Should be a straightforward fix. This file was  
> autogenerated a while back but never updated for recent releases. AI  
> Craig upload a new version of the metadata file to the apache repo  
> which then gets synced with the central repo.
>
> Now might be a good time to migrate to maven 2 for the project.  
> Using maven 2, the metadata files would be generated correctly  
> during packaging. Craig has already created a maven 2 pom for the  
> api project; using maven 2 for the tck would require more work,  
> probably creating a maven 2 plugin to handle the logic of running  
> the iut and ri tests.
>
> 2. (JDO-623) Query cancel and timeout support (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-623

> ) Michael has added patches to the JIRA. AI everyone review  
> Michael's comments and patches to the JIRA.
>
> 3. runtck.iut There have been issues running the RI as the iut. AI  
> Michelle see if the runtck.iut still works with DataNucleus.
>
> 4. Other issues
>
> Should the enhancer API be a required part of an implementation? It  
> would make writing the tck easier, since the enhancer is currently  
> the biggest difference among implementations.
>
> Should the tck support the user's choice of maven 1.0.2 or 1.1?  
> Seems like maven 1.1 works well enough to make it a requirement. AI  
> Michael file a JIRA to update the README for the tck.
>
> Matthew Adams sent an email last week regarding fetch notifications  
> (see action item below). AI everyone read and react to the proposals.
>
> There is renewed interest (e.g. cloud computing) in persistence APIs  
> that don't have a fully ACID compliant, fully featured SQL back end,  
> and yet the data is not simply key-value blob storage. This might be  
> a good fit for JDO, assuming that we can adapt the data model and  
> query model to make some features optional. Something like a profile  
> approach (list a group of features that are required for the basic  
> profile distinct from the features that the full profile needs).
>
> Action Items from weeks past:
>
> [Feb 13 2007] AI Craig update the spec and make clear the  
> relationship between Query.cancel and multithreading.
>
> [Feb 13 2007] AI Matthew discuss on email method by which an  
> application might dynamically tune itself by tracking field access  
> by use-case?
>
> [Nov 30 2007] AI Christiaan propose more details on Update/copy by  
> query for post-JDO 2.1.
>
> [May 25 2007]  AI everyone download the Grails demo from grails.org   
> and check it out. Also look at Grails/Groovy ExpandoMetaClass that   
> has the magic to avoid reflection and enhancement.
>
> [May 25 2007] AI Matthew Adams prepare a proposal with just the  
> basics of schema synchronization with jdo and orm metadata.
>
> -- Michelle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message