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 Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org> on 2006/03/06 16:28:35 UTC
[spec comment] jdoNewInstance
7.5
"If the class is abstract, null is returned."
but should be "If the class is abstract, a JDOFatalInternalException is thrown."
Re: [spec comment] jdoNewInstance
Posted by Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org>.
Another inconsistence in the spec
21.13
Some methods require a non-null state manager. In these cases, if the
jdoStateManager
is null, then IllegalStateException is thrown.
e.g. 21.20 jdoReplaceField
If there is no StateManager (the jdoStateManager field is null), then
this method throws JDOFatalInternalException.
Regards,
Quoting Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>:
> Hi Erik,
>
> Sorry, you are right. The spec is inconsistent. I agree with you that
> 21.20 is right and 7.5 is wrong. This will go on the "errata" list
> for the next spec update.
>
> Craig
>
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:
>
> > Craig,
> >
> > I thought it was a correction rather than an item to discuss. See
> > spec 21.20
> >
> > Quoting Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>:
> >
> >> Hi Erik,
> >>
> >> If the spec were still open, I'd agree to discuss it. But it
> >> isn't. :-
> >> ( We can look at this for a future revision.
> >>
> >> By the way, the rationale was that it's less work in the enhancer to
> >> generate the code, but I admit the rationale is weak. But either way,
> >> it's a matter of the implementation checking for null or catching a
> >> NullPointerException versus catching a JDOFatalInternalException. I'd
> >> guess it's a "startup cost".
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >> On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 7.5
> >>> "If the class is abstract, null is returned."
> >>>
> >>> but should be "If the class is abstract, a
> >>> JDOFatalInternalException is thrown."
> >>>
> >>
> >> 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!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> 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!
>
>
Re: [spec comment] jdoNewInstance
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Erik,
Sorry, you are right. The spec is inconsistent. I agree with you that
21.20 is right and 7.5 is wrong. This will go on the "errata" list
for the next spec update.
Craig
On Mar 6, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I thought it was a correction rather than an item to discuss. See
> spec 21.20
>
> Quoting Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>:
>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> If the spec were still open, I'd agree to discuss it. But it
>> isn't. :-
>> ( We can look at this for a future revision.
>>
>> By the way, the rationale was that it's less work in the enhancer to
>> generate the code, but I admit the rationale is weak. But either way,
>> it's a matter of the implementation checking for null or catching a
>> NullPointerException versus catching a JDOFatalInternalException. I'd
>> guess it's a "startup cost".
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 7.5
>>> "If the class is abstract, null is returned."
>>>
>>> but should be "If the class is abstract, a
>>> JDOFatalInternalException is thrown."
>>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>
>
>
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!
Re: [spec comment] jdoNewInstance
Posted by Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org>.
Craig,
I thought it was a correction rather than an item to discuss. See spec 21.20
Quoting Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>:
> Hi Erik,
>
> If the spec were still open, I'd agree to discuss it. But it isn't. :-
> ( We can look at this for a future revision.
>
> By the way, the rationale was that it's less work in the enhancer to
> generate the code, but I admit the rationale is weak. But either way,
> it's a matter of the implementation checking for null or catching a
> NullPointerException versus catching a JDOFatalInternalException. I'd
> guess it's a "startup cost".
>
> Craig
>
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:
>
> >
> > 7.5
> > "If the class is abstract, null is returned."
> >
> > but should be "If the class is abstract, a
> > JDOFatalInternalException is thrown."
> >
>
> 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!
>
>
Re: [spec comment] jdoNewInstance
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Erik,
If the spec were still open, I'd agree to discuss it. But it isn't. :-
( We can look at this for a future revision.
By the way, the rationale was that it's less work in the enhancer to
generate the code, but I admit the rationale is weak. But either way,
it's a matter of the implementation checking for null or catching a
NullPointerException versus catching a JDOFatalInternalException. I'd
guess it's a "startup cost".
Craig
On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:
>
> 7.5
> "If the class is abstract, null is returned."
>
> but should be "If the class is abstract, a
> JDOFatalInternalException is thrown."
>
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!