Agenda:
1. JDO2 Annotations: 1, 2, or 3 (any and all) Technically, we might be better off having JDO annotations. But since 220 has already defined annotations, it might be better to use them. On the other side, Versant customers don't want to include 220 annotation libraries in their code just to annotate classes as persistence- capable. Perhaps a way around this is to define JDO annotations completely, but allow JDO implementations to accept 220 annotations. This might require that the JDO specification define the mapping from 220 to JDO annotations, to avoid portability issues where there is ambiguous mapping. Overriding rules (metadata specified in annotations plus xml) need to be defined as well.
AI: everyone respond to the discussion on the expert group alias.AI: Erik document 220 annotations that don't have a corresponding JDO concept.
2. Deletion of objects when foreign-key is present (JDO-392) (any and all) It seems that there are two different issues: managing the memory model and managing the database. Craig opines that the general case of consistency is already covered in the chapter on mapping, requiring that the object model be consistent after a flush. Object model consistency would disallow a reference to a deleted object, so the natural behavior would be to nullify the reference to the deleted object. For to-many relationships mapped to a foreign key on the other side, the consistency rule would delete the reference from the collection on the one- side of the relationship. So it seems that the JPOX behavior as originally reported is consistent and we might simply document it in the specification.
AI Craig write up the proposal. AI Erik write up JPOX behavior.3. Subqueries in JDOQL (any and all) Michael still has the action item to follow up on Craig's queries using the proposed update to the query. Proposal is to define subqueries using the variable definition.
Action Items from weeks past:[Jun 30 2006] AI everyone: Look at the link JPOX sent out for their annotations.
[Jun 30 2006] Craig sent around some more example queries. AI: Michael will propose a JDOQL query that will handle them. AI: Matthew will send follow-up email on his proposal.
[Jun 23 2006] AI Craig update ChangeLog and ChangeLog15 pages and ask for review by EG. AI Martin look at what Hibernate and TopLink support for Enum types.
[Jun 23 2006] AI everyone look at and respond to the JDOQL subqueries thread.
[Jun 2 2006] Additional query tests for projecting variables are in Craig's workspace. AI Craig: file a JIRA with patches to be reviewed.
[Jun 2 2006] AI team: go through the open issues and assign relevant issues to the maintenance release.
[Apr 14 2006] AI Craig: update the roadmap for JDO. In progress.[Nov 4 2005] AI Martin: Update Martin's wiki with discusion of JDK 1.5 issues. In progress
[Sep 2 2005] AI: To recruit members, update the web site. Articles on TheServerSide directing attention to the site. T-shirts, logo. AI: Craig write a ServerSide article.
-- 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!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
