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 2005/04/01 07:20:30 UTC
updates to tck11 project
Hi,
I have made the following commits to tck11:
- Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
- Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the runtck.single
and enhance.*identity goals.
-- Michelle
Re: updates to tck11 project
Posted by Craig Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Eric,
Can you tell me what TCK tests you are talking about having to hack?
When writing the spec, I had expected that this was more of a mapping
issue than anything else. For example, if you had an Object type field
that you knew always had an Employee in it, you could map the field to
an Employee statically, and at runtime verify that the class of the
object assigned to that field was actually compatible with Employee
regardless of the Java type.
Thanks,
Craig
On Apr 2, 2005, at 12:18 AM, erik@jpox.org wrote:
> If all implementations require that Object type fields to implement
> Serializable, in the JDO spec we should mention it and in the TCK
> classes should implement Serializable.
>
> The only thing I don't want is to have to hack the TCK in order to pass
> the tests.
>
> Erik Bengtson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Russell [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 2:33 AM
> To: JDO Expert Group; jdo-dev@db.apache.org
> Subject: Re: updates to tck11 project
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure what the question is here. Is it whether the TCK correctly
> tests the Object field type?
>
> Craig
>
> On Apr 1, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote:
>
>> From a specification standpoint (I just checked), I guess you can
>> require that your users make their Object-typed field instances
>> serializable (section 6.4.3), since you are allowed to restrict the
>> instances that can be stored in these cases. If they don't implement
>> Serializable, you can throw a ClassCastException and still be
> compliant
>> with the spec.
>>
>> <quotation>
>> Object Class type
>> JDO implementations must support fields of Object class type as FCOs.
>> The implementation
>> is permitted, but is not required, to allow any class to be assigned
> to
>> the field. If an implementation
>> restricts instances to be assigned to the field, a ClassCastException
>> must be
>> thrown at the time of any incorrect assignment.
>>
>> Portable JDO applications must not depend on whether these fields are
>> treated as SCOs or FCOs.
>> </quotation>
>>
>> --matthew
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:47 PM
>>> To: matthew.adams@xcalia.com
>>> Cc: jdo-dev@db.apache.org; jdo-experts-ext@sun.com
>>> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>>>
>>>
>>> I ask if a JDO implementation, in order to support
>>> java.lang.Object, can require
>>> from the classes to be persisted to implement Serializable.
>>>
>>> Are there any requirements from LIDO to store Object types?
>>>
>>> Quoting "Matthew T. Adams" <ma...@xcalia.com>:
>>>
>>>> LiDO supports it. Any instance stored in the field whose
>>> type is Object
>>>> must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped.
>>>>
>>>> --matthew
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM
>>>>> To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>>> Cc: jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM
>>>>> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
>>>>> implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what
>>> about others?
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Erik Bengtson
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
>>>>> To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: updates to tck11 project
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have made the following commits to tck11:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
>>>>> - Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the
>>>>> runtck.single
>>>>> and enhance.*identity goals.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Michelle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 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: updates to tck11 project
Posted by Eric Samson <er...@xcalia.com>.
Erik
In LiDO when an attribute is a java.lang.Object we don't impose the
referenced object to be serializable if it is a PC. But if it is not a PC it
must be Serializable, as for embedded objects.
Best Regards
.:
Eric Samson, xcalia
-----Message d'origine-----
De : erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
Envoyé : samedi 2 avril 2005 10:19
À : jdo-dev@db.apache.org; 'JDO Expert Group'
Objet : RE: updates to tck11 project
If all implementations require that Object type fields to implement
Serializable, in the JDO spec we should mention it and in the TCK classes
should implement Serializable.
The only thing I don't want is to have to hack the TCK in order to pass the
tests.
Erik Bengtson
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Russell [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 2:33 AM
To: JDO Expert Group; jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: updates to tck11 project
Hi,
I'm not sure what the question is here. Is it whether the TCK correctly
tests the Object field type?
Craig
On Apr 1, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote:
> From a specification standpoint (I just checked), I guess you can
> require that your users make their Object-typed field instances
> serializable (section 6.4.3), since you are allowed to restrict the
> instances that can be stored in these cases. If they don't implement
> Serializable, you can throw a ClassCastException and still be
compliant
> with the spec.
>
> <quotation>
> Object Class type
> JDO implementations must support fields of Object class type as FCOs.
> The implementation
> is permitted, but is not required, to allow any class to be assigned
to
> the field. If an implementation
> restricts instances to be assigned to the field, a ClassCastException
> must be thrown at the time of any incorrect assignment.
>
> Portable JDO applications must not depend on whether these fields are
> treated as SCOs or FCOs.
> </quotation>
>
> --matthew
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:47 PM
>> To: matthew.adams@xcalia.com
>> Cc: jdo-dev@db.apache.org; jdo-experts-ext@sun.com
>> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>>
>>
>> I ask if a JDO implementation, in order to support java.lang.Object,
>> can require from the classes to be persisted to implement
>> Serializable.
>>
>> Are there any requirements from LIDO to store Object types?
>>
>> Quoting "Matthew T. Adams" <ma...@xcalia.com>:
>>
>>> LiDO supports it. Any instance stored in the field whose
>> type is Object
>>> must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped.
>>>
>>> --matthew
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM
>>>> To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>> Cc: jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM
>>>> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
>>>> implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what
>> about others?
>>>>
>>>> Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Erik Bengtson
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
>>>> To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>> Subject: updates to tck11 project
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have made the following commits to tck11:
>>>>
>>>> - Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
>>>> - Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the
>>>> runtck.single and enhance.*identity goals.
>>>>
>>>> -- Michelle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: updates to tck11 project
Posted by er...@jpox.org.
If all implementations require that Object type fields to implement
Serializable, in the JDO spec we should mention it and in the TCK
classes should implement Serializable.
The only thing I don't want is to have to hack the TCK in order to pass
the tests.
Erik Bengtson
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Russell [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 2:33 AM
To: JDO Expert Group; jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: updates to tck11 project
Hi,
I'm not sure what the question is here. Is it whether the TCK correctly
tests the Object field type?
Craig
On Apr 1, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote:
> From a specification standpoint (I just checked), I guess you can
> require that your users make their Object-typed field instances
> serializable (section 6.4.3), since you are allowed to restrict the
> instances that can be stored in these cases. If they don't implement
> Serializable, you can throw a ClassCastException and still be
compliant
> with the spec.
>
> <quotation>
> Object Class type
> JDO implementations must support fields of Object class type as FCOs.
> The implementation
> is permitted, but is not required, to allow any class to be assigned
to
> the field. If an implementation
> restricts instances to be assigned to the field, a ClassCastException
> must be
> thrown at the time of any incorrect assignment.
>
> Portable JDO applications must not depend on whether these fields are
> treated as SCOs or FCOs.
> </quotation>
>
> --matthew
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:47 PM
>> To: matthew.adams@xcalia.com
>> Cc: jdo-dev@db.apache.org; jdo-experts-ext@sun.com
>> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>>
>>
>> I ask if a JDO implementation, in order to support
>> java.lang.Object, can require
>> from the classes to be persisted to implement Serializable.
>>
>> Are there any requirements from LIDO to store Object types?
>>
>> Quoting "Matthew T. Adams" <ma...@xcalia.com>:
>>
>>> LiDO supports it. Any instance stored in the field whose
>> type is Object
>>> must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped.
>>>
>>> --matthew
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM
>>>> To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>> Cc: jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM
>>>> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
>>>> implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what
>> about others?
>>>>
>>>> Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Erik Bengtson
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
>>>> To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>> Subject: updates to tck11 project
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have made the following commits to tck11:
>>>>
>>>> - Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
>>>> - Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the
>>>> runtck.single
>>>> and enhance.*identity goals.
>>>>
>>>> -- Michelle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: updates to tck11 project
Posted by Craig Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi,
I'm not sure what the question is here. Is it whether the TCK correctly
tests the Object field type?
Craig
On Apr 1, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Matthew T. Adams wrote:
> From a specification standpoint (I just checked), I guess you can
> require that your users make their Object-typed field instances
> serializable (section 6.4.3), since you are allowed to restrict the
> instances that can be stored in these cases. If they don't implement
> Serializable, you can throw a ClassCastException and still be compliant
> with the spec.
>
> <quotation>
> Object Class type
> JDO implementations must support fields of Object class type as FCOs.
> The implementation
> is permitted, but is not required, to allow any class to be assigned to
> the field. If an implementation
> restricts instances to be assigned to the field, a ClassCastException
> must be
> thrown at the time of any incorrect assignment.
>
> Portable JDO applications must not depend on whether these fields are
> treated as SCOs or FCOs.
> </quotation>
>
> --matthew
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:47 PM
>> To: matthew.adams@xcalia.com
>> Cc: jdo-dev@db.apache.org; jdo-experts-ext@sun.com
>> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>>
>>
>> I ask if a JDO implementation, in order to support
>> java.lang.Object, can require
>> from the classes to be persisted to implement Serializable.
>>
>> Are there any requirements from LIDO to store Object types?
>>
>> Quoting "Matthew T. Adams" <ma...@xcalia.com>:
>>
>>> LiDO supports it. Any instance stored in the field whose
>> type is Object
>>> must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped.
>>>
>>> --matthew
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM
>>>> To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>> Cc: jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM
>>>> Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
>>>> implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what
>> about others?
>>>>
>>>> Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Erik Bengtson
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
>>>> To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>>>> Subject: updates to tck11 project
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have made the following commits to tck11:
>>>>
>>>> - Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
>>>> - Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the
>>>> runtck.single
>>>> and enhance.*identity goals.
>>>>
>>>> -- Michelle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: updates to tck11 project
Posted by "Matthew T. Adams" <ma...@xcalia.com>.
>From a specification standpoint (I just checked), I guess you can
require that your users make their Object-typed field instances
serializable (section 6.4.3), since you are allowed to restrict the
instances that can be stored in these cases. If they don't implement
Serializable, you can throw a ClassCastException and still be compliant
with the spec.
<quotation>
Object Class type
JDO implementations must support fields of Object class type as FCOs.
The implementation
is permitted, but is not required, to allow any class to be assigned to
the field. If an implementation
restricts instances to be assigned to the field, a ClassCastException
must be
thrown at the time of any incorrect assignment.
Portable JDO applications must not depend on whether these fields are
treated as SCOs or FCOs.
</quotation>
--matthew
>-----Original Message-----
>From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:47 PM
>To: matthew.adams@xcalia.com
>Cc: jdo-dev@db.apache.org; jdo-experts-ext@sun.com
>Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>
>
>I ask if a JDO implementation, in order to support
>java.lang.Object, can require
>from the classes to be persisted to implement Serializable.
>
>Are there any requirements from LIDO to store Object types?
>
>Quoting "Matthew T. Adams" <ma...@xcalia.com>:
>
>> LiDO supports it. Any instance stored in the field whose
>type is Object
>> must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped.
>>
>> --matthew
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>> >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM
>> >To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>> >Cc: jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM
>> >Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>> >
>> >
>> >I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
>> >implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what
>about others?
>> >
>> >Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
>> >
>> >
>> >Erik Bengtson
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
>> >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
>> >To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>> >Subject: updates to tck11 project
>> >
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I have made the following commits to tck11:
>> >
>> >- Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
>> >- Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the
>> >runtck.single
>> >and enhance.*identity goals.
>> >
>> >-- Michelle
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
RE: updates to tck11 project
Posted by er...@jpox.org.
I ask if a JDO implementation, in order to support java.lang.Object, can require
from the classes to be persisted to implement Serializable.
Are there any requirements from LIDO to store Object types?
Quoting "Matthew T. Adams" <ma...@xcalia.com>:
> LiDO supports it. Any instance stored in the field whose type is Object
> must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped.
>
> --matthew
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
> >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM
> >To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
> >Cc: jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM
> >Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
> >
> >
> >I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
> >implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what about others?
> >
> >Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
> >
> >
> >Erik Bengtson
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
> >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
> >To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
> >Subject: updates to tck11 project
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have made the following commits to tck11:
> >
> >- Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
> >- Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the
> >runtck.single
> >and enhance.*identity goals.
> >
> >-- Michelle
> >
> >
>
>
>
RE: updates to tck11 project
Posted by "Matthew T. Adams" <ma...@xcalia.com>.
LiDO supports it. Any instance stored in the field whose type is Object
must be either a PC, a PI, or custom-mapped.
--matthew
>-----Original Message-----
>From: erik@jpox.org [mailto:erik@jpox.org]
>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:09 AM
>To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>Cc: jdo-experts-ext@Sun.COM
>Subject: RE: updates to tck11 project
>
>
>I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
>implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what about others?
>
>Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
>
>
>Erik Bengtson
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
>To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
>Subject: updates to tck11 project
>
>Hi,
>
>I have made the following commits to tck11:
>
>- Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
>- Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the
>runtck.single
>and enhance.*identity goals.
>
>-- Michelle
>
>
RE: updates to tck11 project
Posted by er...@jpox.org.
I wonder if we require developers willing to store java.lang.Object
implement Serializable interface. JPOX requires it, what about others?
Currently, the TCK does not implement Serializable.
Erik Bengtson
-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle Caisse [mailto:Michelle.Caisse@Sun.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:21 AM
To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: updates to tck11 project
Hi,
I have made the following commits to tck11:
- Fixed problem with Oid classes reported by Erik
- Fixed a couple of minor problems with maven.xml in the runtck.single
and enhance.*identity goals.
-- Michelle