[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12657131#action_12657131
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-591:
how does the impl know if it is a persistence-unit
I agree
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12656373#action_12656373
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-621:
Would you also support javax.jdo.Enhancer -s
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12656565#action_12656565
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-591:
I think that subdirectories should be added as a global flag,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12654180#action_12654180
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-621:
I would prefer:
javax.jdo.Enhancer (instead of
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12654182#action_12654182
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-621:
Following is the current ObjectDB Enhancer usage:
Usage:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12654190#action_12654190
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-621:
It is a good idea to have long and short forms for all
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12647900#action_12647900
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-591:
Some ideas:
(1)
void enhanceClasses(String... classNames)
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-611?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12645593#action_12645593
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-611:
Thanks Craig. That will solve this issue.
Missing addTearDownClass in PersistenceManagerTest
--
Key: JDO-613
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-613
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Test
Components: tck2
Affects
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-613?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12645643#action_12645643
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-613:
It seems that the following addition to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-613?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ilan Kirsh updated JDO-613:
---
Attachment: jdo-613.patch
Suggested patch
Missing addTearDownClass in PersistenceManagerTest
GetObjectIdForPersistentInterface - Implementation Class / PICompany / ICompany
Mess
-
Key: JDO-611
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-611
Project: JDO
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12607065#action_12607065
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-591:
-persistenceUnit is too long and error prone, should be -pu.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-542?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12534621
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-542:
The patch looks good as well as the proposal for the close issue.
Adjusting Extent
Adjusting Extent to Java 5.0
Key: JDO-542
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-542
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: api2, api2-legacy
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
It
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-542?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12532911
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-542:
We should think what to do with Extent.close(iterator) when the iterator is
implicit.
SignatureVerifier
--
Key: JDO-534
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-534
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Test
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-534?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ilan Kirsh updated JDO-534:
---
Component/s: tck2-legacy
tck2
Description: Test
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-526?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12529220
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-526:
It is unclear if relationshipAllRelationships.conf /
relationshipNoRelationships.conf
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-526?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12529263
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-526:
IMO option A is preferred, i.e. update the spec and leave the tck as is.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-529?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12528462
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-529:
I still cannot pass this test, now because of the DISTINCT / ORDER BY
combination.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-529?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12528495
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-529:
Thanks, the patch looks good.
By the way, I read that such a DISTINCT / ORDER BY
ImplicitParameters.testGrouping - uses keyword 'min' as a parameter name
Key: JDO-530
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-530
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Test
ChangeQuery - DISTINCT is expected even though it is not specified
--
Key: JDO-529
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-529
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Test
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-452?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12525936
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-452:
Looks good.
I see that JDOEntityTransaction is not defined, but the following should
SELECT lastname INTO java.lang.Long - is a negative test?
-
Key: JDO-524
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-524
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Test
Components: tck2
StateTransitionsReturnedObjects assumes Non Transactional Write enabled by
default
--
Key: JDO-514
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-514
Project: JDO
Annotations should be adjusted also to non ORM implementations
--
Key: JDO-512
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-512
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Test
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-474?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12485762
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-474:
Looks very good. Could you please set the link to ObjectDB to the home page
Cannot use JDO 2 xsd for XML validation
---
Key: JDO-472
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: JDO 2 final
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12480938
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-472:
Thanks Craig, I will try DocumentBuilder. This is not a copy/paste error, I
just
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12480950
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-472:
It does work well with DocumentBuilder and parse. Thanks.
Still, the failure with
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12480964
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-472:
Unfortunately I am getting the same problems now with DocumentBuilder. I tried
also
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-403?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12474081
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-403:
The Query and Sequence annotations conflict with JDO interfaces with the same
name.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-403?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12466402
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-403:
I guess types only should be fine, because a single type will usually be
specified
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-403?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12465480
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-403:
Looks very good. As a result of update #6 maybe the XML metadata should also be
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-403?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12465491
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-403:
After adding @Transient, maybe @Transactional and @Persistent should also be
added
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-403?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12465524
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-403:
Maybe only @Transactional is needed. @Field will actually indicate @Persistent
and
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-404?page=comments#action_12439986 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-404:
The patch seems to do the trick. Thanks.
GetFetchPlan - Is it really forbidden to load extra fields?
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-345?page=comments#action_12439991 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-345:
Thanks. A tiny comment - the import in line 24 (import
org.apache.jdo.tck.JDO_Test) is not needed.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-64?page=comments#action_12439352
]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-64:
---
What is the current status of these tests? Are they removed? Should I fill a
CHALLENGE for that?
Enhancer test cases must be adapted
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-419?page=comments#action_12434343 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-419:
Hi Craig,
Your last comment is very interesting. I didn't know that this is the new
policy. Actually ObjectDB 2.0 supports dual
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-423?page=comments#action_12433928 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-423:
I agree that the test is valid. Probably my expectations for automatic recovery
after a delete failure in the implementation were
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-423?page=comments#action_12433708 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-423:
This issue still reflects a real (minor) problem, even though it is clear to me
now that the solution that I suggested is invalid.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-423?page=comments#action_12433724 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-423:
Thanks Michael.
I tried several runs of the TCK tests that ObjectDB already passes with
application identity.
1st run (ordinary) -
Missing addTearDownClass in
org.apache.jdo.tck.query.jdoql.variables.VariablesWithoutExtent
---
Key: JDO-423
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-423
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-409?page=comments#action_12431434 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-409:
I believe the title should be IsTransactionalFalse makes invalid assumption
that transaction is datastore and that this issue
GetFetchPlan - Is it really forbidden to load extra fields?
---
Key: JDO-404
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-404
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
Components: tck20
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-345?page=comments#action_12426872 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-345:
Can this be resolved for maintenance release 1? Simply by discarding the test
or by switching to non existing methods?
recursion-depth - fetching the whole graph with 0 or -1?
Key: JDO-405
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-405
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: JDO 2 final
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-402?page=comments#action_12424341 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-402:
Thanks for the fix. I assume that the old code should work fine if the
implementation returns from getGroup a shared set that is
checkRemoveGroup - removeGroup should be before getGroups
-
Key: JDO-402
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-402
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
Components: tck20
Missing transaction begin in NontransactionalWriteTest
--
Key: JDO-399
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-399
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
Components: tck20
IsTransactionalFalse - Should work with optimistic transactions?
Key: JDO-400
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-400
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
CallingJdoPreclear -
-
Key: JDO-401
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-401
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
Components: tck20
Affects Versions: JDO 2 final
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
--
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-401?page=comments#action_12423265 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-401:
In org.apache.jdo.tck.api.instancecallbacks.CallingJdoPreclear:
When optimistic transaction is used, In the commit in line 127
NoExtent - no no-arg constructor
Key: JDO-396
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-396
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
Components: tck20
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
Class
Locale instances are shared by different PMs (when in use as FCO)
-
Key: JDO-397
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-397
Project: JDO
Issue Type: Bug
Missing pm.close() in GetPersistenceManagerFactory
--
Key: JDO-380
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-380
Project: JDO
Type: Bug
Components: tck20
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
I suspect that pm.close()
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-376?page=comments#action_12377165 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-376:
Thank you for the fix and for the clarification regarding cleanupPM.
DeletePersistentFailsIfInstanceManagedByAnotherPersistenceManager - No
DeletePersistentFailsIfInstanceManagedByAnotherPersistenceManager - No cleanup
for pm
-
Key: JDO-376
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-376
Project: JDO
Type: Bug
Comment error in OptimisticFailure
--
Key: JDO-373
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-373
Project: JDO
Type: Bug
Components: tck20
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
Priority: Trivial
Line 112: // create four instances to
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-372?page=comments#action_12375883 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-372:
I had to delete old database files manually one time to make this patch work
because the cleanup is done only on success (It is preferred to
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-372?page=comments#action_12375885 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-372:
I don't understand the last comment. I am working now on ObjectDB 2.0 that
unlike ObjectDB 1.0 will not support binary compatibility, but the
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-372?page=comments#action_12375890 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-372:
Thank you for the clarification. I now understand this is useless if binary
compatibility is not supported. Maybe you can add a check before
ConcurrentPersistenceManagersSameClasses - Failed on second run
---
Key: JDO-372
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-372
Project: JDO
Type: Bug
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
Thanks to
CloseOfExtentIteratorIsIteratorSpecific Error Message
-
Key: JDO-371
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-371
Project: JDO
Type: Bug
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
Priority: Minor
There is a tiny copy and
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-370?page=comments#action_12375362 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-370:
Thanks. The patch works well - I just passed this test case now.
Valid query seems invalid in SetterReplacePreviousValues
Valid query seems invalid in SetterReplacePreviousValues
Key: JDO-370
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-370
Project: JDO
Type: Bug
Components: tck20
Reporter: Ilan Kirsh
Probably I am
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-345?page=comments#action_12371861 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-345:
On a second thought, maybe the test should be preserved as a negative test but
refer to non existing methods? In this case an implementation
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-345?page=comments#action_12371478 ]
Ilan Kirsh commented on JDO-345:
I also think that this test should be dropped. A negative test might cause a
new problem - how the implementation can check if a method is
MethodsAndObjectConstructionNotSupported (A14.6.2-8) should allow getX()
Key: JDO-345
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-345
Project: JDO
Type: Test
Components: tck20
72 matches
Mail list logo
