The discussion of the spec was interesting, but does anyone have any
feedback or comments on my actual question?
-Gus
Gus Heck wrote:
Well I have discovered that my feeling that casting to
PersistenceCapable was wrong is correct.
From page 60 of the jdo spec, regarding PersistenceCapable
NO
I call the requirement that any persistent class implement
PersistenceCapable an evil part of the spec for the SPI as it is
completely unnecessary. If a vendor chooses to use bytecode
enhancement/generation/etc they are welcome to, but to require it as
part of the spec is just annoying and enco
The reason I expected to be wrong was that PC is listed as part of the
SPI not the API. If applications muck around in the SPI then they may
get information that is inconsistant with the same information provided
by the API. The JDO vendor (OJB) may be doing fancy (and maybe even cool
and usefu
On Dec 9, 2003, at 2:04 PM, Gus Heck wrote:
Well I have discovered that my feeling that casting to
PersistenceCapable was wrong is correct.
I prefer the term "evil" for this part of the spec ;-) (sorry Matt)
-Brian
-
To unsub
Well I have discovered that my feeling that casting to
PersistenceCapable was wrong is correct.
From page 60 of the jdo spec, regarding PersistenceCapable
NOTE: This interface is not intended to be used by application programmers.
It is for use only by implementations. Applications should use th
