Re: Problem with self-referencing relationship

Hi Karan,On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Karan Malhi wrote:Hi Craig,I dont know anything about this "Completeness Test" . I do know that the tck requirements is that the test should leave the database in a clean state. Is this what the completeness test does (check to see if db is clean)? When I sugges

Re: Problem with self-referencing relationship

Hi Craig, I dont know anything about this "Completeness Test" . I do know that the tck requirements is that the test should leave the database in a clean state. Is this what the completeness test does (check to see if db is clean)? Where do i look for this test? I heard you mentioning on the co

Re: Problem with self-referencing relationship

Hi Andy,On Aug 8, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:Any update on this? Not from me. Not had time to look at it. Don't know if Erik has.Out of interest, how do I run this "CompletenessTest" on its own ? (since it's not in alltests.conf). I've tried running "companyNoRelationships.conf", which

Re: Problem with self-referencing relationship

Hi Andy, Karan,On Aug 8, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:Any update on this? Not from me. Not had time to look at it. Don't know if Erik has.Out of interest, how do I run this "CompletenessTest" on its own ? (since it's not in alltests.conf). I've tried running "companyNoRelationships.conf"

Re: Problem with self-referencing relationship

> Any update on this? Not from me. Not had time to look at it. Don't know if Erik has. Out of interest, how do I run this "CompletenessTest" on its own ? (since it's not in alltests.conf). I've tried running "companyNoRelationships.conf", which is fine for 1 run, but if I run it again it tries

Re: Antlr 2.7.5

Hi Brian, hi Craig, as Craig pointed out, we had a non-standard way to support international characters when we used antlr 2.7.0. But I changed this when we moved to antlr 2.7.3. So I think it makes sense to switch to antlr 2.7.5. I will work on this, I also like to switch the ri11 project and

Re: FieldsOfSimpleClass, FieldsOfSimpleInterface

Hi Andy,We decided to change the FieldsOfSimpleInterface to avoid embedded fields. The only thing we will test is serializing and by-reference.I thought that the test was already updated to remove embedded field requirement. If there still are embedded persistent interfaces, then please file a JIRA

Re: Patch for Detachable, PersistenceCapable, StateManager

Hi Andy,On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:When would be a good time to check it in then? I'm not planning anyupdates unless someone finds a bug...So just let me know when you are ready and I'll check it in. Hi Craig,check it in whenever you get a spare moment, and I'll get started on

Re: Fetch groups and EJB3

Hi Niclas,On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:07 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:On Monday 08 August 2005 20:48, Jörg von Frantzius wrote: It's part of the JDO specification, and it allows you to staticallydeclare groups of fields on classes and then dynamically combine thesegroups to specify which fields of a class you

Re: Problem with self-referencing relationship

Hi Eric, Andy,Any update on this?Thanks,CraigOn Jul 21, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Michael Bouschen wrote:Hi Erik, hi Andy,when running the CompletenessTest I ran into a JDODataStoreException saying that a column name is in more than one table in the FROM list. I have the feeling it has to do with self-ref

Inheritance proposal

Hi, in t-conference, Jul 8, Craig proposed 5 inheritance mappings that TCK should implement. Below, you find a description of each mapping. All mappings are based on the company model. The company model defines two inheritance hierarchies: PersonIns

Re: Fetch groups and EJB3

On Monday 08 August 2005 20:48, Jörg von Frantzius wrote: > It's part of the JDO specification, and it allows you to statically > declare groups of fields on classes and then dynamically combine these > groups to specify which fields of a class you want to have fetched from > the DB when using a Qu

Re: Fetch groups and EJB3

Niclas Hedhman schrieb: On Monday 08 August 2005 17:48, Jörg von Frantzius wrote: concept of fetch groups Do you have some definition for what the meaning of "fetch groups" are for us who have no clue ??? It's part of the JDO specification, and it allows you to statically declare

Re: Fetch groups and EJB3

On Monday 08 August 2005 17:48, Jörg von Frantzius wrote: > concept of fetch groups Do you have some definition for what the meaning of "fetch groups" are for us who have no clue ??? Cheers Niclas

Fetch groups and EJB3

Hi, there is a public discussion with low noise and interesting participants going on over at news://news.eclipse.org/eclipse.technology.ejb-orm and news://news.eclipse.org/eclipse.technology.jsr220-orm (account required on eclipse.org), about th

Re: Patch for Detachable, PersistenceCapable, StateManager

> When would be a good time to check it in then? I'm not planning any > updates unless someone finds a bug... > > So just let me know when you are ready and I'll check it in. Hi Craig, check it in whenever you get a spare moment, and I'll get started on the JPOX part. -- Andy Java Persistent

FieldsOfSimpleClass, FieldsOfSimpleInterface

FieldsOfSimpleClass now passes. JPOX latest now supports serialised PC fields and serialised Interface fields. The only thing stopping FieldsOfSimpleInterface passing is probably that JPOX doesn't support embedded interface fields. I don't consider this a mandatory part of JDO2. Embedded interf