Hi Chris,
I've also thought that if we restricted the usage to fresh
PersistenceManagers we could attach at will. Some comments below.
On Aug 7, 2007, at 11:52 AM, cbeams wrote:
On Aug 7, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
You could allow something of this form by imposing a restric
Having used the annotations in their evolving forms for the last
several months, I and my fellow developers have gotten very used to
typing:
@Persistent(persistenceModifier = PERSISTENT, defaultFetchGroup
= "true")
private MyObject obj;
To the uninitiated, it seems rather redundan
Hi Chris,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:59 PM, cbeams wrote:
Having used the annotations in their evolving forms for the last
several months, I and my fellow developers have gotten very used to
typing:
@Persistent(persistenceModifier = PERSISTENT, defaultFetchGroup
= "true")
private MyOb
I've created http://wiki.apache.org/jdo/ScalableBackEnd and linked it
from the main JDO wiki.
Regards,
Craig
On Aug 7, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Richard Schilling wrote:
Look forward to writing for the Wiki. I'll go ahead and pull out
my reference material so we can have some time-proven data st
Hi Jörg,
I have no issue with your suggestion.
Does anyone object? Like an implementation who would have to actually
do the work? JPOX?
Craig
On Aug 6, 2007, at 3:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Craig,
I had a quick look at the draft, and, next to feeling honoured, I
was particul
Craig,
Thanks for the response. A few clarifications below:
- Chris
On Aug 8, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:59 PM, cbeams wrote:
Having used the annotations in their evolving forms for the last
several months, I and my fellow developers have gott
Hi Chris,
No problem. Happy to have you on the call on Friday.
Craig
On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:29 PM, cbeams wrote:
Hello,
I'm planning to be on the weekly call this Friday at 9:00am PST,
and would like to request an agenda item for discussion.
Several days ago, I posted regarding introducing
Hi Chris,
Yes, thanks for catching this. Portable applications will define all
pc classes in xml or annotations. I'm sure other cases of xml-envy
still exist in the spec.
Craig
On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:32 AM, cbeams wrote:
21.6, "XML Metadata" reads:
Portable applications will define all p
Hi Chris,
It is perfectly reasonable to have the annotation
@Persistent
private MyObject obj;
and have field obj actually be persistent.
The xml metadata is a bit unhelpful If you annotate
...
I think that foo is transient because of defaults.
Let's see how to make this more help
So if we introduce a flag that uses the same instance on attach, we
might want to have the flag called CopyOnMakePersistent and have true
be the current specified behavior and false be the new behavior we've
been discussing.
The defaults for these kinds of options have never been specified
On Aug 8, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
So if we introduce a flag that uses the same instance on attach, we
might want to have the flag called CopyOnMakePersistent and have
true be the current specified behavior and false be the new
behavior we've been discussing.
Sounds great
Hi Chris,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:07 PM, cbeams wrote:
P.S.: When sending emails of this sort, should I always cc the jdo-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] address, or is jdo-dev sufficient?
You should send messages to both jdo-experts and jdo-dev aliases. One
of them is the official expert group and the o
Hi,
> > So if we introduce a flag that uses the same instance on attach, we
> > might want to have the flag called CopyOnMakePersistent and have
> > true be the current specified behavior and false be the new
> > behavior we've been discussing.
>
> Sounds great to me. There's some fine print here
13 matches
Mail list logo
