Hi Michael, On Jun 1, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Michael Watzek wrote:
Hi Craig,Ok. What do you think of adding a check in tearDown (before the other check):Hi Michael, On Jun 1, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Michael Watzek wrote:Yes. Unless we can think of cases where the test method wants instances removed but needs to close the PMF for some reason. I think in these cases we can let the test method clean itself.Hi Craig,And we should probably disallow pmf == null in cases where there is work to do.I'm not sure. Do you mean that the test result is ERROR for test cases having "pmf == null in cases where there is work to do"? Let me know if you feel strong on this.I think so. Since this is a new feature, any test case that uses tearDown methods should leave the PMF open. Can you think of a case where this is not true?No. My question is: Do we want to *force* test cases to leave the PMF open when they add tear down instances and/or classes?if ((pmf == null || pmf.isClosed()) &&(this.tearDownInstances.size() > 0 || this.tearDownClasses.size() > 0)) throw new JDOFatalException ("PMF must not be nullified or closed when tear down instances and /or classes have been added.");
Sounds good. Craig
Michael -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Watzek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Buelowstr. 66 Tel.: ++49/30/235 520 36 10783 Berlin - Germany Fax.: ++49/30/217 520 12 http://www.spree.de/ -------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
