Re: updates to tck11 project

Craig Russell 2 Apr 2005 16:55:41 -0000

Hi Eric,

Can you tell me what TCK tests you are talking about having to hack?

When writing the spec, I had expected that this was more of a mapping issue than anything else. For example, if you had an Object type field that you knew always had an Employee in it, you could map the field to an Employee statically, and at runtime verify that the class of the object assigned to that field was actually compatible with Employee regardless of the Java type.

Thanks,

Craig

On Apr 2, 2005, at 12:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

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!

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!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: updates to tck11 project

Reply via email to