I'm fine with either approach. I think you're right about the problem
with the JDO1 spec, so let's change the numbers back in the 2.0 spec.
-- Michelle
Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Michelle,
I thought about this again and meanwhile I'm not sure whether we
should do the renumbering of the assertio
Hi Michelle,
I thought about this again and meanwhile I'm not sure whether we should
do the renumbering of the assertions. It is a lot of work changing the
spreadsheet and the corresponding TCK test classes. But what concerns me
more is that all the TCK test cases we have today are valid JDO 1
Yes, that does need to be done. I can do that when I have my turn at
the spreadsheet.
-- Michelle
Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Craig, hi Michelle,
some chapters of the JDO spec are renumbered from 1.0 to 2.0:
ChapterJDO 1.0 JDO 2.0
Extent15 19
Hi Craig, hi Michelle,
some chapters of the JDO spec are renumbered from 1.0 to 2.0:
ChapterJDO 1.0 JDO 2.0
Extent15 19
JDO Reference Enhancer20 21
Interface StateManager21 22
JDOPermission 22
