If all implementations require that Object type fields to implement Serializable, in the JDO spec we should mention it and in the TCK classes should implement Serializable.
The only thing I don't want is to have to hack the TCK in order to pass the tests. Erik Bengtson -----Original Message----- From: Craig Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 2:33 AM To: JDO Expert Group; [email protected] Subject: Re: updates to tck11 project Hi, I'm not sure what the question is here. Is it whether the TCK correctly tests the Object field type? Craig On Apr 1, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > 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!
