Thanks, Craig. I also asked our CTS rep to present this new testcase, but I
haven't heard what the result is. I did find out that they normally do not
introduce new tests during a test cycle (ie. Java EE 5). They only remove
testcases based on successful challenges. But, they will take note of new
test requests and possibly include them in the next round. That's what our
experience has been anyway.
Kevin
On 2/5/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've forwarded the new test case to our CTS team here. They will take
a look to see if it can be adapted to the CTS test framework.
Craig
On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:25 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Craig,
> If anybody would have a channel to the CTS team, I would think it
> would be
> you. :-) I have also passed on this request to our CTS rep to see
> where it
> takes us. Good idea. Thanks.
>
> Kevin
>
> On 1/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> I agree with your analysis.
>>
>> I would also like to see a CTS test made for this case. Do we have a
>> channel through BEA or IBM for requests for CTS test cases?
>>
>> Another recent example is the EntityManager.getDelegate behavior
>> which surely should be a candidate for a CTS test.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> > We've noticed that when EntityManager.clear() is invoked, an
>> implicit
>> > flush() is performed. Although the spec is cloudy in this area, I
>> > don't
>> > think this processing is correct. The javadoc is as follows for
>> > clear():
>> >
>> > /**
>> > * Clear the persistence context, causing all managed
>> > * entities to become detached. Changes made to entities that
>> > * have not been flushed to the database will not be
>> > * persisted.
>> > */
>> > public void clear();
>> >
>> > This indicates that Entities that have not been flushed will not be
>> > persisted. Thus, I would say this implies that we should not be
>> > doing an
>> > implicit flush. If the application wanted their Entities to be
>> > flushed
>> > before the clear, then they can call the flush() method before
>> calling
>> > clear(). We shouldn't be doing this for them because then they
>> > have no
>> > choice.
>> >
>> > The Pro EJB3 Java Persistence API book has similar wording on pages
>> > 138-139:
>> >
>> > "..In many respects [clear] is semantically equivalent to a
>> > transaction
>> > rollback. All entity instances managed by the persistence context
>> > become
>> > detached with their state left exactly as it was when the clear()
>> > operation
>> > was invoked..."
>> >
>> > Our current processing for clear() eventually gets to this code:
>> >
>> > public void detachAll(OpCallbacks call) {
>> > beginOperation(true);
>> > try {
>> > if ((_flags & FLAG_FLUSH_REQUIRED) != 0)
>> > flush();
>> > detachAllInternal(call);
>> > } catch (OpenJPAException ke) {
>> > throw ke;
>> > } catch (RuntimeException re) {
>> > throw new GeneralException(re);
>> > } finally {
>> > endOperation();
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a
>> > flush()
>> > followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear()
>> > should be
>> > doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Kevin
>>
>> 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!
