| Hi Erik, Thanks for the comments. I've updated the JDOHelperTest based on your comments: |
jdohelpertest.patch
Description: Binary data
On Jul 16, 2005, at 9:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did consider this when I wrote the code, and decided that the Map exception was correct. The requirement in JDO 2.0 has changed from getPMF(Properties) to getPMF(Map), so a compliant implementation will recompile with Map as the formal parameter. <spec> A11.1-32 [An implementation must provide a method to construct a PersistenceManagerFactory by a Map instance. This static method is called by the JDOHelper method getPersistenceManagerFactory (Map props). static PersistenceManagerFactory getPersistenceManagerFactory (Map props);] A11.1-33 [The properties consist of: “javax.jdo.PersistenceManagerFactoryClass”, whose value is the name of the implementation class; any JDO vendor-specific properties; and the following standard property names, which correspond to the properties as documented in this chapter: "javax.jdo.option.Optimistic" "javax.jdo.option.RetainValues" ... </spec> The exception is only raised if no getPMF method is found, and since the requirement is for getPMF(Map) it seems like this is the right exception to report. I included the JDOHelper code to allow getPMF(Properties) for convenience of implementations until they have compiled with the new API20 library. I don't expect that the Properties code will need to be there for the final release.
I've added a new test case in JDOHelperTest to test that a JDOException thrown from getPersistenceManagerFactory will be thrown to the user.
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! |
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
