+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. WeNope, it fails.Ok. So the TCK does not pass with my patch and without enhancement. Myinclination 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
