Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 97380 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2004 10:09:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Jun 2004 10:09:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 75915 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2004 10:10:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 75598 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2004 10:10:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "OJB Developers List" Reply-To: "OJB Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ojb-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 75344 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jun 2004 10:09:50 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [194.95.168.2] (HELO prosun.first.fraunhofer.de) (194.95.168.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:09:50 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pille [194.95.168.10]) by prosun.first.fraunhofer.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5QA9At9012180 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:09:10 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <40DD4BF6.9090907@first.fhg.de> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:12:06 +0200 From: Thomas Dudziak User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: de, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OJB Developers List Subject: Re: PersistentField implementations, dramatic performance differences References: <40DC2143.8020506@apache.org> <40DC21DA.7070803@first.fhg.de> <09915C2B-C6EB-11D8-8943-000A95782782@forthillcompany.com> <40DD37E9.4070907@first.fhg.de> <40DD3FF1.1030900@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <40DD3FF1.1030900@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Armin Waibel wrote: > I added a test case for PersistenceFields (PersistenceFieldTest), it > seems that PersistenceFieldAutoProxyImpl isn't work properly. The test > does not pass. > The test use non-nested, nested fields and fields specific to > Introspector (metadata name is compilant with javabeans, but class field > name differs). There are two problems here, and neither is in the auto proxy impl: 1. The test case does not set the tested persistent field impl as the default persistent field impl (for PersistentFieldFactory), so the creation of PersistentField instances for the nested field always uses the direct access impl. 2. You added a new abstract PersistentField base imlementation which is unrelated to the existing one (AbstractPersistentField), and which is set as the base class of the introspector impl. This lets the test fail because the auto proxy impl requires AbstractPersistentField impls (for doGet/doSet) leasing to a class cast exception in the PersistenceFieldAutoProxyImpl#getFieldImpl method that determines the actual persistent field impl to use. I fixed the first issue in the test case, but since I don't know why you added the new base type, I didn't touch the second one. Can you have a look ? Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org