> Issue 106 is the biggest single problem. It is about mapping Object > fields, which are covered in the specification. Section 6.4.3 says > the implementation must support Object fields as First Class Objects.
OK, but the wording of that part of the spec was discussed in the EG back on 02 April 2005 (thread titled "updates to tck11 project", for those with EG access) and the general conclusion was that it was totally vague, and maybe a JDO implementation should be able to map "some PC type" to that Object field but how it can be testable by the TCK is open to debate. How does the JDO impl know that this Object field can only be a "SimpleClass" PC object maybe ? There's no info that I can see in the metadata to define this. It's the same problem space as interfaces. With those we have the "implements" attribute which tells us which actual types we can store there. Consequently JPOX models an interface field as being one FK for each implementation type (so if there are 3 possible implementations, then the schema has 3 FKs). With "Object" we have nothing to go on, so at the time of mapping the schema we know that we may have to map something. Clearly the JDO implementation could define an extension tag (akin to the JPOX "implementation-classes" that we had for interfaces) that defines that this Object field can be represented by these 2 PC types, but that becomes not testable by the TCK at that point. If there's some action on JPOX from this, just let us know so we can work out what is needed. -- Andy
