You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jdo-dev@db.apache.org by Michelle Caisse <Mi...@Sun.COM> on 2007/10/05 22:54:17 UTC
Re: CHALLENGE
org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
Hi Ilan,
I've checked in changes for all the challenges to the 2.0.1 branch.
Please let me know if there are any problems with the fixes.
-- Michelle
Ilan Kirsh wrote:
>Challenge against JDO TCK 2.01:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-513
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-514
>Issues are not solved yet.
>
>Ilan Kirsh, ObjectDB Software
>
>
>
Re: Adjusting Extent to Java 5.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Ilan,
Great idea. Would you mind updating the JIRA?
Craig
On Oct 6, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Ilan Kirsh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It might make sense to update Extent:
>
> public interface Extent<E> extends Iterable<E> {
> :
> :
> }
>
> and in PersistenceManager:
>
> Extent<T> getExtent (Class<T> cls, boolean subclasses);
> Extent<T> getExtent (Class<T> cls);
>
> This way, iteration over all the instances of a class could be
> simplified:
>
> for (Person person : pm.getExtent(Person.class))
> System.out.println(person.getName());
>
> Ilan Kirsh
> ObjectDB Software
> http://www.objectdb.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Explicit datastore lock method
Posted by Ilan Kirsh <ki...@objectdb.com>.
Hi,
I wonder why an explicit lock method in the style of ODMG
is not supported by JDO.
The absense of UPGRADE lock mode makes it very difficult
to use automatic datastroe locking without deadlock problems.
Anyone else had this experience?
Ilan Kirsh
ObjectDB Software
http://www.objectdb.com
Adjusting Extent to Java 5.0
Posted by Ilan Kirsh <ki...@objectdb.com>.
Hi,
It might make sense to update Extent:
public interface Extent<E> extends Iterable<E> {
:
:
}
and in PersistenceManager:
Extent<T> getExtent (Class<T> cls, boolean subclasses);
Extent<T> getExtent (Class<T> cls);
This way, iteration over all the instances of a class could be simplified:
for (Person person : pm.getExtent(Person.class))
System.out.println(person.getName());
Ilan Kirsh
ObjectDB Software
http://www.objectdb.com
Re: CHALLENGE
org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
Posted by Michelle Caisse <Mi...@Sun.COM>.
Very good. I've checked the fix into the trunk.
-- Michelle
Ilan Kirsh wrote:
> Hi Michelle,
>
> You were right. The test is fine now. The problem this time was an
> attempt to flush non transactional write changes when no transaction
> is active, which was my bug, of course.
>
> Thank you very much for all the TCK fixes.
>
> Regards, Ilan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Caisse"
> <Mi...@Sun.COM>
> To: <jd...@db.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:40 PM
> Subject: Re: CHALLENGE
> org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
>
>
>> Hi Ilan,
>>
>> As far as I can see, the fix checked in for JDO-514 should address
>> the issue you raised there. On line 229, we changed
>> transaction.setNontransactionalRead(true);
>> to
>> transaction.setNontransactionalWrite(true);
>> The original was probably a typo. Experimenting with this change in
>> the trunk, print statements show that
>> transaction.getNontransactionalWrite() returns true when there is no
>> active transaction and current_state is
>> PERSISTENT_NONTRANSACTIONAL_DIRTY.
>>
>> Can you take another look and see if there might be some other problem?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michelle
>>
>> Ilan Kirsh wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michelle,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the fixes.
>>>
>>> It seems that all the challenges except one are solved now.
>>> I still have a problem with StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.
>>> As far as I can see, JDO-513 was fixed, but not JDO-514.
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>
>>> Ilan
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Caisse"
>>> <Mi...@Sun.COM>
>>> To: <jd...@db.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:54 PM
>>> Subject: Re: CHALLENGE
>>> org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Ilan,
>>>>
>>>> I've checked in changes for all the challenges to the 2.0.1 branch.
>>>> Please
>>>> let me know if there are any problems with the fixes.
>>>>
>>>> -- Michelle
>>>>
>>>> Ilan Kirsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Challenge against JDO TCK 2.01:
>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-513
>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-514
>>>>> Issues are not solved yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ilan Kirsh, ObjectDB Software
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: CHALLENGE
org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
Posted by Ilan Kirsh <ki...@objectdb.com>.
Hi Michelle,
You were right. The test is fine now. The problem this time was an attempt
to flush non transactional write changes when no transaction is active,
which was my bug, of course.
Thank you very much for all the TCK fixes.
Regards, Ilan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michelle Caisse" <Mi...@Sun.COM>
To: <jd...@db.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE
org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
> Hi Ilan,
>
> As far as I can see, the fix checked in for JDO-514 should address the
> issue you raised there. On line 229, we changed
> transaction.setNontransactionalRead(true);
> to
> transaction.setNontransactionalWrite(true);
> The original was probably a typo. Experimenting with this change in the
> trunk, print statements show that transaction.getNontransactionalWrite()
> returns true when there is no active transaction and current_state is
> PERSISTENT_NONTRANSACTIONAL_DIRTY.
>
> Can you take another look and see if there might be some other problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Michelle
>
> Ilan Kirsh wrote:
>> Hi Michelle,
>>
>> Thank you for the fixes.
>>
>> It seems that all the challenges except one are solved now.
>> I still have a problem with StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.
>> As far as I can see, JDO-513 was fixed, but not JDO-514.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>>
>> Ilan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Caisse"
>> <Mi...@Sun.COM>
>> To: <jd...@db.apache.org>
>> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: CHALLENGE
>> org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
>>
>>
>>> Hi Ilan,
>>>
>>> I've checked in changes for all the challenges to the 2.0.1 branch.
>>> Please
>>> let me know if there are any problems with the fixes.
>>>
>>> -- Michelle
>>>
>>> Ilan Kirsh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Challenge against JDO TCK 2.01:
>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-513
>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-514
>>>> Issues are not solved yet.
>>>>
>>>> Ilan Kirsh, ObjectDB Software
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: CHALLENGE
org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
Posted by Michelle Caisse <Mi...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Ilan,
As far as I can see, the fix checked in for JDO-514 should address the
issue you raised there. On line 229, we changed
transaction.setNontransactionalRead(true);
to
transaction.setNontransactionalWrite(true);
The original was probably a typo. Experimenting with this change in the
trunk, print statements show that transaction.getNontransactionalWrite()
returns true when there is no active transaction and current_state is
PERSISTENT_NONTRANSACTIONAL_DIRTY.
Can you take another look and see if there might be some other problem?
Thanks,
Michelle
Ilan Kirsh wrote:
> Hi Michelle,
>
> Thank you for the fixes.
>
> It seems that all the challenges except one are solved now.
> I still have a problem with StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.
> As far as I can see, JDO-513 was fixed, but not JDO-514.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Ilan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Caisse"
> <Mi...@Sun.COM>
> To: <jd...@db.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: CHALLENGE
> org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
>
>
>> Hi Ilan,
>>
>> I've checked in changes for all the challenges to the 2.0.1 branch.
>> Please
>> let me know if there are any problems with the fixes.
>>
>> -- Michelle
>>
>> Ilan Kirsh wrote:
>>
>>> Challenge against JDO TCK 2.01:
>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-513
>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-514
>>> Issues are not solved yet.
>>>
>>> Ilan Kirsh, ObjectDB Software
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: CHALLENGE
org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
Posted by Ilan Kirsh <ki...@objectdb.com>.
Hi Michelle,
Thank you for the fixes.
It seems that all the challenges except one are solved now.
I still have a problem with StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.
As far as I can see, JDO-513 was fixed, but not JDO-514.
Thanks and regards,
Ilan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michelle Caisse" <Mi...@Sun.COM>
To: <jd...@db.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE
org.apache.jdo.tck.lifecycle.StateTransitionsReturnedObjects.java
> Hi Ilan,
>
> I've checked in changes for all the challenges to the 2.0.1 branch. Please
> let me know if there are any problems with the fixes.
>
> -- Michelle
>
> Ilan Kirsh wrote:
>
>>Challenge against JDO TCK 2.01:
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-513
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-514
>>Issues are not solved yet.
>>
>>Ilan Kirsh, ObjectDB Software
>>
>>
>