Re: Upgrade derby version in tck20

Hi, I checked in the derby upgrade. I did a clean run uisng the new derby version. I did not try to run a database schema that was created using the previous derby version. So you might want to reinstall the schema (maven installSchema) in case you detect problems. Regards Michael Hi

Re: 2nd version of inheritance patch 1 of 2

Hi, I agree it makes sense to check in the inheritance patch, so I checked it in :-). Now maven runtck.jdori runs 22 configurations and 14 of them fail. Regards Michael Hi Craig, Michelle, I agree with Andy that it makes sense to check in the inheritance patch. If there are still issues

Re: svn commit: r264982 - in /incubator/jdo/trunk: README.txt tck20/project.properties tck20/project.xml

Hi Michael,On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:+The Reference Implementation for JDO 2.0 is JPOX. The tck20 subproject  +automatically downloads the latest JPPOX snapshot.Minor typpo.Craig Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408

Re: Interpretation of fetch depth

Hi Jörg,The fields to be fetched from the instance(s) reachable from this field are governed by the fetch plan in effect. That is, the fetch groups in the fetch plan are used to determine the set of fields to be fetched. So all of the primitive fields in the fetch groups would be fetched (and none

Re: Interpretation of fetch depth

Craig Russell schrieb: Hi Jörg, The fields to be fetched from the instance(s) reachable from this field are governed by the fetch plan in effect. That is, the fetch groups in the fetch plan are used to determine the set of fields to be fetched. So all of the primitive fields in the fetch

Re: Interpretation of fetch depth

Hi Jörg,On Aug 31, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:Craig Russell schrieb: Hi Jörg,The fields to be fetched from the instance(s) reachable from this field are governed by the fetch plan in effect. That is, the fetch groups in the fetch plan are used to determine the set of fields to be

Re: Interpretation of fetch depth

Hi Jörg,On Aug 31, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:Craig Russell schrieb: FetchPlan.VALUES is no longer in the specification as of the Proposed FInal Draft. Ayayay, I didn't know that it exists already, sorry. FetchPlan.VALUES still exists in the latest revision in the subversion

Second patch for new tests of schema orm attribute

Hi, I've attached a revised patch for new tests of the schema attribute in orm metadata. I made the suggested changes except for changing table names in the new schemas. -- :Michelle Index: test/sql/derby/datastoreidentity/schema5.sql

Persistent interface factory testing proposal

Javadogs,Please review http://wiki.apache.org/jdo/PersistentInterfaces for the test strategy for persistent interface factory pm.newInstance(PersistentInterfact.class).Thanks,Craig Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL

Spurious executable file property in svn repository

Hi, There has been discussion here about the Windows subversion client automatically assigning the executable property to non-executable files. I believe I have a solution for this. I also suggest that we clean up the executable properties currently in the repository. BACKGROUND

Re: Spurious executable file property in svn repository

Hi Michelle,+1 And thanks for running this down.I don't believe that the JDO project ships anything for which the executable flag needs to be on. We use maven for executing stuff, and if maven doesn't care if the -x bit is on, we should not either.So I agree that the svn:executable flag is just a