openjpa-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: unenhanced class support
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:46:35 GMT
+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
View raw message