The test that broke (TestConfigurationImpl) defined a Configuration implementation Ctest. None of the Values of CTest is dynamic. CTest is not frozen. The test i. sets Values of C ii. serializes-deserializes C to C' iii. Compares C and C' (passes) iv. updates values of C' v. serializes-deserializes C' to C'' vi. Compares C' and C'' (fails)
I have not debugged it further to see why it breaks. My initial guess is our assumption of 'original value' being null is violated for C' which is deserialized version of C. Keeping the distinction for dynamic Values using 'original' while non-dynamic Values using 'current' strings makes the test pass (in a easy-way-out sort of way) because none of the Values is dynamic. I will debug it (may not be today though) to find out further. In fact, I think a crtical unanswered question about all this changes I have made is: Why Configuration was transposed to Properties for equality/hashCode computation? Given that we are acting (tweaking?) with incomplete knowledge on a stable Value framework, I suggest we keep the distiction based on dynamic nature of Values as that way we will not at least hamper non-dynamic Values. Pinaki Poddar 972.834.2865 >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:14 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (OPENJPA-305) Dynamic >configuration of EntityManagerFactory > >Can you elaborate on this? > >Not knowing anything else about the situation, my instinct is >that a) is a better solution, since it seems like a better >architecture for the future. > >-Patrick > >On 9/18/07, Pinaki Poddar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>I don't understand why we do the isDynamic() check in equals() and >> >>hashCode(), though; shouldn't getOriginalValue() always be correct? >> > >> >Correct. Thanks. >> >> But one test openjpa.lib.conf.test.TestConfigurationImpl breaks >> because it uses a different Configuration impl. >> Either we a) modify the test or we b) retain the distinction between >> original and current value. >> I went for (b). >> >> >> >> >> Pinaki Poddar >> 972.834.2865 >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Pinaki Poddar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:09 PM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: RE: [jira] Commented: (OPENJPA-305) Dynamic >configuration of >> >EntityManagerFactory >> > >> > >> >>I don't understand why we do the isDynamic() check in equals() and >> >>hashCode(), though; shouldn't getOriginalValue() always be correct? >> > >> >Correct. Thanks. >> > >> >Pinaki Poddar >> >972.834.2865 >> > >> > >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: Patrick Linskey (JIRA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:03 PM >> >>To: [email protected] >> >>Subject: [jira] Commented: (OPENJPA-305) Dynamic configuration of >> >>EntityManagerFactory >> >> >> >> >> >> [ >> >>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-305?page=com.atla >> >>ssian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action >> >>_12528633 ] >> >> >> >>Patrick Linskey commented on OPENJPA-305: >> >>----------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>Generally, it looks good. Some comments: >> >> >> >>I don't understand why we do the isDynamic() check in equals() and >> >>hashCode(), though; shouldn't getOriginalValue() always be correct? >> >> >> >>Also, it looks like there's a synchronization issue at hand >> >-- based on >> >>my reading, dynamic sets must occur in a synchronized >manner, or the >> >>behavior is non-deterministic. That is OK (I don't think that we >> >>necessarily want to add synchronization on accesses), but >should be >> >>well-documented. >> >> >> >>> Dynamic configuration of EntityManagerFactory >> >>> --------------------------------------------- >> >>> >> >>> Key: OPENJPA-305 >> >>> URL: >> >>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-305 >> >>> Project: OpenJPA >> >>> Issue Type: New Feature >> >>> Reporter: Pinaki Poddar >> >>> Attachments: openjpa-305.patch.1.txt >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> OpenJPA configures EntityManagerFactory at creation time via >> >>an instance of Configuartion object. Once EntityManagerFactory is >> >>created and a EntityManager is issued from it -- the Configuration >> >>is frozen by design. That is no further changes to >Configuration is >> >>allowed as long as EntityManagerFactory lives. >> >>> For certain configuration properties, it is desirable to >> >>change them during the lifetime of a EntityManagerFactory. >> >>> This issue is raised to initiate a discussion on such a >> >>feature, the possibility and limitations of dynamic update >and track >> >>the impact of such a change as frozen Configuration is an >important >> >>assumption. >> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>This message is automatically generated by JIRA. >> >>- >> >>You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may >> >contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its >subsidiaries and >> >affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, >> >copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for >> >the use of the individual or entity named in this message. >If you are >> >not the intended recipient, and have received this message >in error, >> >please immediately return this by email and then delete it. >> > >> >> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, >may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its >subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be >confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally >privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the >individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the >intended recipient, and have received this message in error, >please immediately return this by email and then delete it. >> > > >-- >Patrick Linskey >202 669 5907 > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
