openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: unenhanced class support
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:00:20 GMT
It's a good feature, I don't have a problem committing the changes so far.

It'll make it easier / more likely to get some testing too :-).

If we're voting this is a +1.

-Mike

On 7/25/07, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to commit it if it works "at all".
>
> Failing the TCK with unenhanced classes is not a big issue for me.
> There's a pretty big cost to keeping large (> 50 LOC) changes and
> having to synchronize commits with the trunk. And it appears like
> we're committed to this direction.
>
> Craig
>
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> >>> > 1. One of the big TODOs seems to be support for compound
> >>> primary keys
> >>> > (e.g., implementing
> >>> > ReflectingPersistenceCapable.pcCopyKeyFieldsToObjectId()).
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I think that things might work as-is with compound PKs. We
> >>
> >> Nope, it fails.
> >>
> >> Ok. So the TCK does not pass with my patch and without
> >> enhancement. My
> >> inclination is to get it committed so that it's in there, and then we
> >> can work on the TCK failures in parallel. If others agree with this
> >> strategy, I'll commit it probably sometime tomorrow. I'll make sure
> >> that whatever I commit passes the TCK with enhancement on, so there
> >> won't be any regression for people using enhancement. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> -Patrick
> >>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message