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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
