detachable PCPoint?

[Martin Zaun <Ma...@Sun.COM>]

Craig,

the 4th subtest in my modified ThreadSafe.java (see JDO-238)
fails because of class PCPoint not being detachable.  I guess
I have to add detachable=true to some .orm files.  But which
one?  There are four of them in each app/datastore identity:
   tck20/src/orm/datastoreidentity/org/apache/jdo/tck/pc/mylib

I was wondering if there's already some mapping for detachable
PC classes, but if this is the very first instance, I can
- comment out the 4th thread-safety subtest, review, check in
- start working on JDO-273 (detach lifecycle tests)
- go back and enable the 4th thread-safety subtest later.

Any comments?

Martin

Re: detachable PCPoint?

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

Hi Martin,

I think it's too late to add the requirement for thread-safety for  
makePersistent of the same detachable instance by multiple threads.

So I'd write a separate low priority JIRA for the thread-safe  
makePersistent detachable and mark it for an unknown release. The  
rest of the thread-safe cases should be good to go.

Craig

On Mar 7, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Martin Zaun wrote:

>
> Craig,
>
> the 4th subtest in my modified ThreadSafe.java (see JDO-238)
> fails because of class PCPoint not being detachable.  I guess
> I have to add detachable=true to some .orm files.  But which
> one?  There are four of them in each app/datastore identity:
>   tck20/src/orm/datastoreidentity/org/apache/jdo/tck/pc/mylib
>
> I was wondering if there's already some mapping for detachable
> PC classes, but if this is the very first instance, I can
> - comment out the 4th thread-safety subtest, review, check in
> - start working on JDO-273 (detach lifecycle tests)
> - go back and enable the 4th thread-safety subtest later.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Martin
>
>

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!