[jira] [Commented] (JDO-751) Support for Java8 Optional

[JIRA]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-751?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15346743#comment-15346743
 ] 

Tilmann Zäschke commented on JDO-751:
-

1. About not being able to handle transient PCs, what about the 
{{org.apache.jdo.tck.query.jdoql.ComparingPersistentAndNonPersistentInstance}} 
test? In this test DN seems to accept a transient PC param, at least to confirm 
that it evaluates to false. 

> Support for Java8 Optional
> --
>
> Key: JDO-751
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-751
> Project: JDO
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: specification, tck
>Reporter: Andy Jefferson
> Fix For: JDO 3.2
>
> Attachments: JDO-751-tck-patch-v4.txt
>
>
> java.util.Optional provides a feature that is available in other languages. 
> Since JDO 3.2 will be for Java8+ then it makes sense to add support for this 
> as a "supported persistable type"



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (JDO-751) Support for Java8 Optional

[Andy Jefferson (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-751?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15346784#comment-15346784
 ] 

Andy Jefferson commented on JDO-751:


1. I said DN equates a transient to null (nothing else reasonable to put it as 
IMHO - the log has a message about it). This is fine when comparing null with 
persistent (the other test), since it doesn't equate. In your test it is not 
fine for the reason I mentioned.

> Support for Java8 Optional
> --
>
> Key: JDO-751
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-751
> Project: JDO
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: specification, tck
>Reporter: Andy Jefferson
> Fix For: JDO 3.2
>
> Attachments: JDO-751-tck-patch-v4.txt
>
>
> java.util.Optional provides a feature that is available in other languages. 
> Since JDO 3.2 will be for Java8+ then it makes sense to add support for this 
> as a "supported persistable type"



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Thursday June 23, 9 AM Pacific Daylight Time (PDT)

[Craig Russell]

Attendees: Michael Bouschen, Tilmann Zäschke, Craig Russell

NOTE: Next meeting will be on July 8 at 9:00 PDT

Agenda:

1. New comments on JDO-751 "Support for Java8 Optional" 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-751

a) comparing transient and persistent instances is explicitly in the 
specification and has a test case ComparingPersistentAndNonPersistentInstance 
which compares instances as well as fields in the instances. The specification 
is not explicit about comparing fields of transient instances, which should 
mean that it is ok to compare fields of transient instances passed as 
parameters (the only way JDOQL can have access to transient instances is via 
parameters). It might be good to add more tests that compare more than just 
personid.

b) Truncation of precision for date types is an issue with the mapping. 
Assuming that a java.util.Date is persisted to a database type that supports 
millisecond precision, queries comparing fields of type java.util.Date should 
be fine.

c) JDO explicitly supports navigation through possibly-null-valued fields 
without null checks. 
“p. 178: Navigation through single-valued fields is specified by the Java 
language syntax of field_name.field_name.field_name.” 
“p 177: Navigation through a null-valued field, which would throw 
NullPointerException, is treated as if the subexpression returnedfalse."

The semantics of navigation in JDOQL are consistent with the way relational 
databases treat NULL values. Navigation via joins will not return results if 
the join condition compares with NULL valued foreign keys. 

The example of the family database of this.father.father.id == 33 seems 
relevant. The corresponding Company model query of this.manager.manager.id == 
33 to find all the second-line reports of manager 33 should also be relevant. 
The interesting thing here is the application of Optional to the case. These 
queries should work regardless of whether the Java null-checks or isPresent() 
checks are used. 

2. JIRA fixed: JDO-754 "Add more logical complement operator JDOQL query tests” 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-754

Closed.

3. JDO 3.1: Need to go through change lists in JIRA for 3.1 RC1 and 3.1 to 
prepare JCP Change Log

4. Other issues

Action Items from weeks past:
[Oct 30 2015] AI Craig: File a maintenance review with JCP
[May 15 2015] AI Craig Spec change for roll back an active transaction when 
closing a persistence manager (JDO-735)  
[Apr 17 2015] AI Craig: Oracle spec page on JDO need to be updated once the JCP 
Maintenance Release for JDO 3.1 is published
[Oct 17 2014] AI Matthew any updates for "Modify specification to address NoSQL 
datastores": https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-651?
[Feb 28 2014] AI Everyone: take a look at 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-712
[Feb 28 2014] AI Everyone: take a look at 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-625
[Dec 13 2013] AI Craig file a JIRA for java.sql.Blob and java.sql.Clob as 
persistent field types
[Aug 24 2012] AI Craig update the JIRAs JDO-689 JDO-690 and JDO-692 about 
JDOHelper methods. In process.

Regards Michael


-- 
Michael Bouschen
akquinet tech@spree GmbH
Bülowstraße 66 • D-10783 Berlin
Tel:   +49 30 235520-33
Fax:  +49 30 217520-12

E-Mail: michael.bousc...@akquinet.de 
Web:   www.akquinet.de 

Geschäftsführung: Martin Weber, Dr. Torsten Fink
Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 86780 • USt.-Id. Nr.: DE 225 964 680

[Facebook]   [XING]
  [G+]
 
[LinkedIn]   [Twitter]


Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!