I'm fine with either approach. I think you're right about the problem
with the JDO1 spec, so let's change the numbers back in the 2.0 spec.
-- Michelle
Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Michelle,
I thought about this again and meanwhile I'm not sure whether we
should do the renumbering of the assertions. It is a lot of work
changing the spreadsheet and the corresponding TCK test classes. But
what concerns me more is that all the TCK test cases we have today are
valid JDO 1 and JDO 2 tests. For JDO 1 they refer to an annotated
spec that uses the old numbering. This means we would have to maintain
both the old and the new numbers in the test cases.
So I propose to keep the old numbers, even if they do not match the
chapter numbers of the new spec. What do you think?
Regards Michael
Yes, that does need to be done. I can do that when I have my turn at
the spreadsheet.
-- Michelle
Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Craig, hi Michelle,
some chapters of the JDO spec are renumbered from 1.0 to 2.0:
Chapter JDO 1.0 JDO 2.0
Extent 15 19
JDO Reference Enhancer 20 21
Interface StateManager 21 22
JDOPermission 22 23
I noticed from version 2005-01-14 of the JDO 2.0 spec on the
assertions have been renumbered to follow the new chapter numbers,
e.g. all the extent assertion are renumbered from A15.x to A19.x. Is
this on purpose? If yes, we need to adapt the spreadsheet
JdoTckAssertionsTable.sxc and the TCK test classes. We would need to
include the old and the new assertion number into the test classes,
because we want to use the existing test cases for JDO 1.0 and JDO 2.0.
What do you think?
Regards Michael
