From jdo-dev-return-8485-apmail-db-jdo-dev-archive=www.apache.org@db.apache.org Fri Mar 12 17:57:37 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-jdo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 64220 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2010 17:57:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2010 17:57:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 74662 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2010 17:56:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list jdo-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 74654 invoked by uid 99); 12 Mar 2010 17:56:59 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:56:59 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.92.26] (HELO qw-out-2122.google.com) (74.125.92.26) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:56:53 +0000 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so472615qwd.13 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:56:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.121.233 with SMTP id i41mr1385333vcr.86.1268416248835; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:50:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7131B1DF-B9F0-4062-A931-4BE3F069BABE@SUN.com> References: <8EC1E4BD-DBBF-464F-B91F-51E231E81283@SUN.com> <1ba389ce1003120843o3a4deae5m726fb688d6bde49a@mail.gmail.com> <7131B1DF-B9F0-4062-A931-4BE3F069BABE@SUN.com> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:50:48 -0800 Message-ID: <1ba389ce1003120950s4fa4204aw38d22bede634467f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Spec updates for 2.3 From: Matthew Adams To: Craig L Russell Cc: jdo-dev@db.apache.org, JDO Expert Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org No problem. Wish I could be making the conf calls, but I've had daily 9 am scra (plural of scrum?) for the last year! :( On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Craig L Russell wr= ote: > Hi Matthew, > > I agree the section needs to be rewritten. If there is an instance in the > cache already, it might be in any state at all. > > It's only the case where an instance needs to be created that the > specification should say what the state should be. > > Thanks for reading! > > Craig > > On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Matthew Adams wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have a question about the following assertion regarding getting an >> object by exact class with no validation. >> >> >> 12.6.5: >> If the validate flag is false, the user asserts that the instance >> exists and the object id represents the exact class of the persistent >> instance (specifically not a subclass or an interface): >> A12.6.5-2 [If the object id represents an interface or abstract class, >> JDOUserException is thrown.] >> A12.5.6-2 [If there is already an instance in the cache with the same >> JDO identity as the oid parameter, then this method returns it.] >> A12.5.6-3 [There is no change made to the state of the returned >> instance.] >> A12.5.6-4 [If there is not an instance already in the cache with the >> same JDO identity as the oid parameter, then this method creates an >> instance with the specified JDO identity and returns it. If there is >> no transaction in progress, the returned instance will be hollow or >> persistent-nontransactional, at the choice of the implementation.] >> A12.5.6-5 [If there is a transaction in progress, the returned >> instance will be hollow, persistent-nontransactional, or >> persistent-clean, at the choice of the implementation.] >> >> >> Can you please tell me the state of the returned instance if there is >> already an instance in the cache with the same JDO identity as the oid >> parameter and the existing instance is not in any of the states >> hollow, persistent-nontransactional, or persistent-clean? =A0A12.5.6-5 >> appears to me to state that the instance must be in one of these three >> states. =A0It's not clear to me that A12.5.6-2 necessarily takes >> precedence over A12.5.6-5. =A0The way it reads to me, it's almost as >> though the presence of a transaction or not would cause the loss of >> changes in the existing instance. =A0Maybe I'm off base, but I'd >> recommend the following. >> >> >> A12.5.6-5 [If there is a transaction in progress, the returned >> instance will be hollow, persistent-nontransactional, or >> persistent-clean, at the choice of the implementation, unless there >> was a transactional instance in the cache with the same JDO identity >> as the oid parameter, in which case the there is no change made to the >> state of the returned instance.] >> >> >> WDYT? >> >> -matthew >> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Craig L Russell >> wrote: >> [snip] > > 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! > > --=20 mailto:matthew@matthewadams.me skype:matthewadams12 yahoo:matthewadams aol:matthewadams12 google-talk:matthewadams12@gmail.com msn:matthew@matthewadams.me http://matthewadams.me http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewadams