Hi Michael,

On Jun 1, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Michael Watzek wrote:

Hi Craig,

And we should probably disallow pmf == null in cases where there is work to do.

I'm not sure. Do you mean that the test result is ERROR for test cases having "pmf == null in cases where there is work to do"? Let me know if you feel strong on this.
I think so. Since this is a new feature, any test case that uses tearDown methods should leave the PMF open. Can you think of a case where this is not true?
No. My question is: Do we want to *force* test cases to leave the PMF open when they add tear down instances and/or classes?

Yes. Unless we can think of cases where the test method wants instances removed but needs to close the PMF for some reason. I think in these cases we can let the test method clean itself.

Craig


Regards,
Michael

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to