Hello everybody,
I have a concern about the current fetch-depth concept, maybe I'm just
missunderstanding and don't see all the possiblilities.
The way an object graph is fetched can only be defined with the maximum
fetch-depth and the class's fetch-groups (and the fetch-size). This
means th
Running the TCK on jpox out of the box gives only the expected error
(companyPMInterface.conf x 2 identity types). Running maven runtck.iut
out of the box gives 3 additional errors (x 2 identity types) because
the enhancer is not on the classpath. Placing the enhancer jar file in
iut_jars sol
Hi Michelle,Thanks for testing this. Re: the enhancer jar file in iut_jars: should we fix this or consider it a configuration issue that an IUT should know how to fix? Since we do configure the IUT with JPOX as a default, perhaps we should fix it. If you think it's important enough to fix, can you
Hi Craig,
maybe I do not get the point here, but I was assuming I need to put all
my IUT jars in the iut_jars directory. This would include the jar with
the IUT enhancer. So I'm not sure what needs to be fixed here.
Regards Michael
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for testing this.
Re: the enhancer j
I'm not sure that we need to fix this, but we probably should add a note
to RunRules.html saying that to avoid these errors, you should place at
least the enhancer jar in iut_jars.
-- Michelle
Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Craig,
maybe I do not get the point here, but I was assuming I need to
Michelle, Craig,
Martin Zaun wrote:
I'm currently going over the lifecycle spreadsheet, checking the
transition-related assertions for coverage by A5.9.1..190 and the
newly implemented cases, and preparing a few comments (which I'll
send to you soon).
Please, find attached a first batch of co
Hi Craig,
I notice that there aren't any tar files for the TCK. Is there anything
I can do with the zip on Linux?
-- Michelle
Craig L Russell wrote:
Javadogs,
I've staged the final JDO 2.0 release on the apache server.
Please test this release. The dependencies have been updated to
refl
I read the RunRules again and it does say to put the implementation
into the iut_jars directory, so I don't think it's necessary to
update the rules.
Craig
On Mar 30, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Michelle Caisse wrote:
I'm not sure that we need to fix this, but we probably should add a
note to RunR
Hi Michelle,The jar command can unzip the distribution.CraigOn Mar 30, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Michelle Caisse wrote: Hi Craig, I notice that there aren't any tar files for the TCK. Is there anything I can do with the zip on Linux? -- Michelle Craig L Russell wrote: Javadogs, I've staged the f
Doh! I knew that...
-- Michelle
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Michelle,
The jar command can unzip the distribution.
Craig
On Mar 30, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Michelle Caisse wrote:
Hi Craig,
I notice that there aren't any tar files for the TCK. Is there
anything I can do with the zip on Linux?
That's true. I was thinking that we told people that runtck.iut should
work out of the box, but we don't.
-- Michelle
Craig L Russell wrote:
I read the RunRules again and it does say to put the implementation
into the iut_jars directory, so I don't think it's necessary to
update the rules
README.txt identifies release version as non-final
--
Key: JDO-356
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-356
Project: JDO
Type: Bug
Components: tck20
Versions: JDO 2 final
Reporter: Michelle Cais
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-298?page=all ]
Michelle Caisse reassigned JDO-298:
---
Assign To: Michelle Caisse
> Update javadoc to be consistent with 2.0-beta
> -
>
> Key: JDO-298
>
Create web page http://db.apache.org/jdo/tck/final referenced in RunRules.html
--
Key: JDO-357
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-357
Project: JDO
Type: Task
Components: site and
Hi,
We will have our regular meeting Friday, March 31 at 9 am PST to discuss
JDO TCK issues and status.
Dial-in numbers are:
866 230-6968 294-0479#
International: +1 865 544-7856
Agenda:
1. Test status (Michael)
2. Issues with staged release (any and all)
3. Integration and testing of JDO
Michelle, Craig,
Martin Zaun wrote:
I'm currently going over the lifecycle spreadsheet, checking the
transition-related assertions for coverage by A5.9.1..190 and the
newly implemented cases, and preparing a few comments (which I'll
send to you soon).
Please, find attached a first batch of
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-298?page=comments#action_12372604 ]
Michelle Caisse commented on JDO-298:
-
I updated the javadoc, but the title on the start page says "SNAPSHOT". Does
the version number in project.xml need to be updated so t
I noticed that also. I don't know where it got SNAPSHOT from.
I looked again and I still can't find it. Whence is the javadoc?
Craig
On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Michelle Caisse (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-298?
page=comments#action_12372604 ]
Michelle Caisse
Hi Michelle,
Grab the javadoc from the distribution and the title page is good.
Craig
On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Michelle Caisse (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-298?
page=comments#action_12372604 ]
Michelle Caisse commented on JDO-298:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-298?page=all ]
Michelle Caisse resolved JDO-298:
-
Fix Version: JDO 2 final
Resolution: Fixed
With revision 390310, these changes to the site:
- Updated javadoc to JDO 2.0 final
- Changed link associat
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-356?page=all ]
Craig Russell updated JDO-356:
--
Description:
1. README.txt contains the following statements that should be revised for the
JDO2 final release:
This is the release candidate 1 of the JDO 2 project.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-298?page=comments#action_12372633 ]
Andy Jefferson commented on JDO-298:
Hi Michelle,
thanks for updating the javadocs.
Are you sure they reflect "2.0-final" ? I looked at javax.jdo.FetchPlan and see
that getG
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-298?page=comments#action_12372638 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-298:
---
Hi Andy,
Check it now. For about an hour, the spec posted were from an earlier snapshot,
not the final release.
> Update javadoc to be
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-298?page=comments#action_12372639 ]
Andy Jefferson commented on JDO-298:
Hi Craig,
Looks fine now! Thanks.
> Update javadoc to be consistent with 2.0-beta
> -
>
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
