>From a specification standpoint (I just checked), I guess you can require that your users make their Object-typed field instances serializable (section 6.4.3), since you are allowed to restrict the instances that can be stored in these cases. If they don't implement Serializable, you can throw a ClassCastException and still be compliant with the spec.
<quotation> Object Class type JDO implementations must support fields of Object class type as FCOs. The implementation is permitted, but is not required, to allow any class to be assigned to the field. If an implementation restricts instances to be assigned to the field, a ClassCastException must be thrown at the time of any incorrect assignment. Portable JDO applications must not depend on whether these fields are treated as SCOs or FCOs. </quotation> --matthew >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:47 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project > > >I ask if a JDO implementation, in order to support >java.lang.Object, can require >from the classes to be persisted to implement Serializable. > >Are there any requirements from LIDO to store Object types? > >Quoting "Matthew T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> LiDO supports it. Any instance stored in the field whose >type is Object >> must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped. >> >> --matthew >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project >> > >> > >> >I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object >> >implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what >about others? >> > >> >Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable. >> > >> > >> >Erik Bengtson >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: updates to tck11 project >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >I have made the following commits to tck11: >> > >> >- Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik >> >- Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the >> >runtck.single >> >and enhance.*identity goals. >> > >> >-- Michelle >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > >
